Slashdot Mirror

I've gotten cute chicks talking to me by wearing this shirt:

http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft /t006.pl?2

I'm sure the DeCSS one would at least work some of the time, too. :)

Close. Boycott everything associated with the MPAA. That means:

• Don't buy DVDs (already noted) or movies on any media
• Don't rent DVDs or movies on any media
• Don't go to the movies (except as noted below)

With all that new free time: you should find plenty now free to write letters to editors, do a little clothes shopping, talk to your friends and colleagues about the situation, send a contribution to EFF, or maybe even join the Call to Action.

Personally, despite a number of titles being on my wish list, I have neither purchased nor rented a single DVD since this started. Nor have I purchased or rented any tapes. Nor have I gone to any movies.

I wonder: do you suppose slashdot defaults to "flat" mode these days to improve its hit count?

The best way to help with legal funding at this time is to purchase a t-shirt from copyleft , 4 dollars US go to EFF for every shirt sold. You also get a copy of DeCSS on their letterhead. You could frame it and call it art.

Joining EFF is not that much money, about the price of lunch in the Baltimore/Washington area, $20 {student) or $35 {basic [regular folks]}. Well, lunch for two (2) maybe, and not at junk-food-R-us.

-d "not working for anyone -- my opinion is mind [sic] alone"

Absolutely. You'll be wanting the OpenDVD t-shirt from copyleft. It's just $15, and four dollars per shirt goes to the EFF defense fund. Check it out at http://copyleft.net/. Order it now ;-)

Alex Bischoff
---

Alex Bischoff
---

I'll probably get my ass kicked by moderators for saying this, but you can get a nice cheap DVD player for around $150 buck at:

http://dealnews.com/articles/20 000128/32/11270.html

I don't really see a need to boycott DVD stuff, per se. I think I'll personally avoid buying any DVD-related stuff until after the lawsuit ends, though (I've already got a DVD player). It will end in our favor, I am sure (I think my De-CSS shirt can attest to that), so then I'll go out and buy my DVD stuff and, in doing so, contribute to (what will hopefully be) a nice upward spike on the DVD sales charts.

Stop harassing lawsuits, get more sales. That should be the bottomline. :-)

Meanwhile, there's a kid and his family in Norway who need help putting on a legal defense.
If you can find a way to contribute $ directly to their defense, please help out. If anybody has a link to a legit legal fund that is backing the Johansens, please post it here on Slashdot.
There is also the EFF, which is funneling donations to the defense of the stateside OpenDVD posters. Contribute by joining with a donation. You can contribute a little by just buying an OpenDVD T-shirt at Copyleft.net.
There is also this petition circulated by Norway's Linuxguide which is accepting signatures from around the world in protest of the way Norwegian authorities are bringing a patently false prosecution against Jon and his father on behalf of Hollywood's powerful film cartel, the MPAA. By this time tomorrow there could ~15,000 signers!

Meanwhile, get the code, preferably in the form of the now sealed babbling of the MPAA's own President, John J. Hoy and email it to as many people as you can. That's right, spam them with DeCSS to show you care. Be sure to send it to reporters for national news organizations. Sure, they can easily have already seen it, but they need to know that everybody else has too, and that's a story! That's the story, really. There is no better way to demonstrate the inappropriateness of laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright than by showing how unnaturally they impede the free flow of informnation, and that is shown by how perfectly easy and natural it is for the information to flow.

Where can you buy this T-shirt?
at Copyleft, of course

The T-Shirt is available at Copyleft. Here is the url. $4 US goes to EFF with each purchase. According to the Copyleft page, 1370 of the shirts have been sold as of this writing.

Copy Left

Here's the link: http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft/t 039.pl.

I'll be wearing mine proudly come next casual day :-).

And I think it's time to add links to those Court documents pointed-out here recently :-).

• You've already taken the first and most important step - you've taken an interest. Get informed. Get all the facts about the case, read the court cases. This is probably the most important thing you could do.

• Grab the most complete DeCSS/LiVid packages you can find and get them up on a mirror. Make sure other people know where the mirror is (i.e., post it at Slashdot). Foreign mirrors so far are the best bet; for now, look for jurisdictions outside the U.S. and Norway.

• If you're not a member of the EFF now, become one. They're our legal defense; they need our support.

• Buy a CSS T-Shirt at CopyLeft. It costs $15, and $4 goes to the EFF.

• Start talking about this to people you know; give them the source code. We geeks tend to think sometimes that online dissemination is the only way to travel - we forget how much we can do by simply getting out and talking to people.

• If you're a programmer, start developing software in expectation that this code will stand free. This will help create a framework of legitimacy.

• For God's sake, don't rant about boycotting DVD yet. Go out and start buying them. The MPAA claims that the release of this code will destroy the DVD market; if a boycott is successful, and the DVD market depresses, guess who the public blames? And then guess what happens with CSS-2 is cracked? This format is now free - the code can't be hidden again. Don't force them to implement strong encryption in a new format. Buy DVD.

• Host a list of mirrors on your website. The California injunction explicitly states that you are free to link to DeCSS-hosting sites. Take advantage of that.

Defendent #46

Here's something cool to do -- I'm sure most of you saw this link earlier, but just in case here it is again Buy the T-Shirt It's an awesome shirt, it comes with the full source, and 4$ go to EFF

Another page I read (memepool) had a link to CopyLeft which is now selling t-shirts with the DeCSS source code silk-screened onto the back side and includes hard copy of DeCSS code with each T-shirt purchased. Is something like this impacted in any way by this case?

This is posted elsewhere in many of the discussions on DeCSS, but you can find the shirt at copyleft, complete with a paper copy of the source (if I remember correctly), and $4 of the cost of the shirt goes to EFF.

corrected copyleft url:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft/t 039.pl
and the back:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/cop yleft/t039.pl?1&back

corrected copyleft url:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft/t 039.pl
and the back:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/cop yleft/t039.pl?1&back

http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft/t 039.pl
and the back:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/cop yleft/t039.pl?1&back

http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/copyleft/t 039.pl
and the back:
http://copyleft.net/cgi-bin/cop yleft/t039.pl?1&back

Does this mean that /. has to take down the links you just put up due to this judge's ruling?

Is this shirt (at Copyleft.net, scroll down, its frames) talking about the same thing we are? (I haven't been following this closely.) If it is, it'd be a good protest shirt or something.

OpenDVD.org

2600 is calling for demonstrations against the MPAA, and I for one agree. We need to educate ordinary people on the fact that their right to free speech is in serious jeopardy thanks to the greed and stupidity of an organization (the MPAA) that fell for the DVD-security snake oil and can't admit that it's been had.

• If you're not a member of EFF or the ACLU, join now.
• If you are a member, or want to be more active, contact your local 2600 cell or Linux User's Group and help to organize a demonstration.
• If you have a DVD player, and you're too sick to even look at it, consider donating it to a local Geeks with Guns outing, in exchange for plenty of photos. Post them on a website, and mail them to DVD CAA and the members of the MPAA (listed on the 2600 announcement of the injunction).
• Consider buying a DeCSS source shirt; or if you're really radical, consider becoming a DOE (one of the 500+ anonyous people mentioned in the first injunction hearing).
• Boycott movies and videos until the MPAA drops the lawsuit!
• Most importantly: SPREAD THE WORD to other geeks and non-geeks. This is too important for us to keep silent!

This and the Etoy lawsuit are probably the most significant fights to hit our commmunity since the Clipper Chip fiasco. The lines are drawn, ladies and gentlemen; we need to fight with everything we've got to prevent Internet from becoming nothing but a huge, suburban shopping mall. Get involved in an historical fight and have something that you'll be proud to tell your kids and grandkids about, twenty years from now.

I know a lot of people on here are concerned, but aren't going to go through the trouble or go make a donation .. but seriously, this is important stuff. I'm a typical lazy unmotivated American, and even I got off my ass and at least tossed a few dollars their way. So open a new window, go send some $ to them, buy a shirt, or buy some more diskettes to copy the code on and pass out at the trials. Get out there and do something. Please.

And I wonder if those suits realize that the uglier they get, the more they protest, and particularly the more they gloat, the more wide-spread, and more widely-posted that code they fear so much becomes?

I have a copy of it. Snagged it several weeks ago. I am now seriously considering posting it myself.

Twits.

Today, the DVD Copy Control Association and the EFF once again met in court, this time to argue for and against the ordering of a Preliminary Injunction against, basically, the entire Internet, forbidding further dissemination of DeCSS, the source code module that decrypts DVD MPEG streams. After today's hearing, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that shrinkwrap license "agreements" are monsterously unethical and should on no account be allowed to stand.

It is worth noting up front that I am an adamant, vociferous opponent of these so-called "agreements", so I hope the reader will excuse some editorial bias. (Individuals interested in my editorial on the subject can find it here.) Also, events in court did not occur strictly in the order I will present; I will be grouping together related concepts to make them easier to compare.

Court began promptly at 13:30, and counsel for plaintiff and defendant introduced themselves (the names went by too quickly for me to get most of them). Judge Elfving indicated that he would not render his decision today, but would rather consider the arguments and filings before him and render a decision at a future time. He was unwilling to commit to a specific date, but indicated that it would not be overlong. Judge Elfving then invited plaintiff's counsel to present their argument.

Jeffrey Kessler began his argument with the following question: Can a user extract trade secrets in violation of a shrinkwrap agreement? A lot of other arguments were presented, but it seemed to me that the DVD CCA's entire case proceeds from this single precept.

In order to prevail in a trade secret violation, the plaintiff must show:

• That a trade secret exists. Trade secrets must posess information, must derive value from their secrecy, and that the secret's owner must employ reasonable measures to protect that secret.
• The secret was misappropriated. CCA argues that "improper means" were employed to create DeCSS.

CCA's contention is that the reverse engineering employed to discover the CSS algorithm was prohibited by Xing's shrinkwrap license "agreement". (Kessler reiterated this point with some force throughout the proceeding.) Since the reverse engineering violated this contract provision, the algorithm discovered within was improperly obtained due to breach of contract, and is therefore a trade secret violation. DVD CCA therefore argues that they are entitled to a Preliminary Injuction forbidding further dissemination.

Kessler went to a lot of trouble establishing that the original source of DeCSS was Xing's player. An expert's affadivit asserts that the original DeCSS release contained only Xing's key, suggesting that it was the Xing player that had been reverse engineered. Presumably, by establishing Xing to be the original source, they can invoke Xing's "license" that prohibits inspection.

Kessler made the assertion that, even if the "clickwrap" license had somehow been avoided, it still applies and is in force, since the license stipulates that assent to the contract is made, not by clicking on "OK", but by installing and using the software.

Kessler also seemed to go to some lengths to attempt to establish when DeCSS made its first appearance, which appears to have been the binary-only release on 6 October, 1999 from the group M.O.R.E. (Masters Of Reverse Engineering). Subsequent to that, Stevenson's work (where he attacks the hash rather than the keys) appeared around 25 October, 1999. I presume he did this in an attempt to establish that any release subsequent to these dates "must" have come from the "improperly obtained" algorithms.

DVD CCA cited several court cases supporting their petition for a Preliminary Injuction, which were granted forbidding further dissemination of materials under dispute (notably, the Religious Technology Center (Scientology) vs. Netcom). Kessler further asserted that no court case has ever held reverse engineering to be proper.

Kessler also cited the recently effected Digital Millennium Copyright Act which, as a matter of "public policy", forbids reverse engineering. However, he went on to state that DVD CCA is not bringing suit under the DMCA; they are bringing suit under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

The plaintiffs also asserted that the "hacker community" clearly knew that DeCSS was obtained improperly, and proceeded to quote from postings in Slashdot discussion fora made back in July where random people opined that a DVD player for Linux might not be legal to develop. (There were no in-court mentions of Natalie Portman or hot grits.) Kessler asserts that this public discussion validates their claim that the defendants "should have known" DeCSS is illegal.

The plaintiff also stated that the fact people may have been trying to develop a DVD player for Linux is entirely beside the point. Moreover, he stated that DVD CCA was not discriminating against Linux, that they were more than willing to license CSS to any "credible party" who wanted to develop a DVD player.

Finally -- and I think this is fairly significant -- DVD CCA made the observation that, if this were a copyright case, there might be a provision for reverse engineering under the Fair Use doctrine. However, there is no such provision in Trade Secret law, and the reverse engineering is therefore improper.

Kessler then turned the floor over to Robert Sugarman, who proceeded to disparage the EFF's First Amendment arguments. He repudiated the assertion that the defendants were news sources, and that they should not be accorded the protections available to newspapers. He asserted that the defendants are doing much more than engaging in First Amendment-protected discussion on this issue.

He repudiated EFF's citation of the Bernstein case. Copyright was at issue in Bernstein; this is a Trade Secret issue.

He also likened the obtaining of the DeCSS algorithm to breaking into Coca Cola's inner sanctum and stealing a copy of their secret formula. (In fact, the analogy of Coke's secret formula figured prominently in the plaintiff's arguments.)

Then he dropped a small bomb and stated outright, in open court, that they seek to enjoin not only hosting of the DeCSS code, but links to the DeCSS code. He asserted that, because links provide "instant access" to the disputed material, they should be forbidden as well.

He attempted to discredit the Open Source (nee "Hacker") community's motives by bringing to the court's attention the DeCSS Distribution Contest, and Copyleft's new DeCSS t-shirts, painting it as juvenile and irresponsible.

For some reason, he also called attention to the recent cracking of PacBell's ISP accounts, and CDUniverse's credit card database. Presumably, he was trying to associate the criminal activities of these individuals with the activities of the defendants in the case, both of which "clearly" demand decisive action from the court.

Finally, Mr. Sugarman asserted that, if a Preliminary Injunction is not granted, the message it will send is:

• Theft of trade secrets is OK,
• IP law is no longer viable,
• It is "not safe" to publish in digital media.

These remarks by the plaintiff's counsel consumed about an hour and a half. Judge Elfving called a 15 minute recess, after which counsel for the defense began.

The first guy (whose name I did not catch) seemed to rely more on bombast and specious details than on concrete questions of ethics and law. Nevertheless, he did raise some interesting points.

The Scientology case was raised again, this time to point out that the Preliminary Injunction granted and affirmed in that case applied only to one person, not to the entire Internet. He went on to cite the cases of Sega vs. Accolade and Vault vs. Quaid, cases in which reverse engineering was upheld as permissible.

He asserted there was only one real defendant in this case, the one who allegedly did the "dirty deed": Mr. Johansen of Norway who originally developed and published DeCSS. If there is indeed a legitimate action that can be taken, it is solely against this individual.

He turned the plaintiff's Coca Cola analogy on its head by stating that one could buy a can of Coke, take it to a chemical analysis lab, figure out what it was made of, and publish the results. Such an act would be entirely proper under the Trade Secret Act under which DVD CCA is suing.

The defense also argued that trade secret law is a "relational tort," enabling an action of one party against another. It does not protect the secret itself.

He asked, "Where is Xing in this case?" If, as submitted, DVD CCA's license requires licensees to take reasonable measures to protect their trade secrets, then Xing has clearly failed in this obligation. Further, he asserted the DVD CCA does not provide code itself, but expects the individual licensees to develop compliant code. Therefore, any misappropriated technology belongs to Xing, not to DVD CCA.

Finally, he made a highly dubious assertion that there was no evidence submitted to establish that DVD CCA were the legitimately assigned licensors of CSS (which has been developed by Matsushita and Toshiba), and therefore were not empowered to bring this action. (This was readily debunked by the plaintiff during rebuttal.)

After he finished, Eben Moglen, Professor of Law from Columbia Law School took over. I don't think I overstate the issue when I say this guy absolutely kicked ass. Besides being a good orator, the man clearly understands technology as well as law. He's written a treatise on the issues of intellectual property in the digital age entitled Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright.

Mr. Moglen basically proceeded to shred the plaintiff's arguments. He pointed out that DeCSS has nothing to do with wholesale copying; DVDs may be bit-for-bit duplicated and will play in any player without the use of DeCSS. He debunked the assertion of "irreparable harm" to the movie industry by doing some basic bandwidth math showing that downloading a 5.1 gigabyte movie will take you 30 hours (DSL speeds), and if you have a direct backbone connection, it'll take ten hours. Wholesale copying of movies in this manner is therefore not a realistic concern.

He raised the plaintiff's assertion that, while it may not be economically viable to copy movies today, these technologies will become cheaper and more available in the future. However, such theoretical future damages are not at issue; the court need only concern itself with what is happening now.

Mr. Moglen went on to describe CSS as extremely weak, and outlined Stevenson's novel attack against the cipher, which involves attacking the hash value to reconstruct the "title key" by which the MPEG stream may be decoded. In such a case, none of DVD CCA's keys are employed. The title key for any disc can be cracked on a Pentium-III in about 18 seconds. He drove home CSS's weakness by mentioning that Mr. Johansen of Norway is 15 years of age. Thus, the trade secret at issue must not have have been very secret, as it was literally child's play to discover it.

With all this, Moglen asserted that no cause of action remains because no trade secret remains. The "secret" in question was obtained by legitimate means, and Stevenson's subsequent work illustrates that none of DVD CCA's alleged secrets need be involved in decrypting a DVD. Had the DVD CCA acted more swiftly in restraining Mr. Johansen, they might have a cause for action. As it is, they've waited too long.

When he concluded, Moglen received light applause from the gallery as Judge Elfving asked for rebuttal from the plaintiffs.

Mr. Kessler assailed the work of Stevenson, saying that it proceeded from the improper DeCSS code by Johansen. Therefore, Stevenson's work, though novel, is "contaminated" by Johansen's alleged breach of the Xing "license", and the trade secret is still protected.

He argued against defense assertions that no license was in force, saying basically, "Yes, there was!" He attacked EFF's citation of the Sega case, stating that it was a copyright case, and that reverse engineering was held to be proper under Fair Use. This is a trade secret issue.

However, he went on to call attention to the DMCA again, stating that, as a matter of "public policy", reverse engineering is held to be improper. Then he flips again, and says they're not citing DMCA, only the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (which has no provisions for fair use).

Finally, the floor was turned over to Mr. Sugarman who (under pressure of time) characterized Professor Moglen's arguments as entertaining but irrelevant. All DVD CCA seeks, says Sugarman, is to take down the DeCSS code and all links to the DeCSS code. They are not seeking damages, nor are they seeking to quash discussion of the merits of the algorithm; only the trade secret itself.

Judge Elfving then thanked counsels, said there was a lot to think about, and would render his decision as soon as possible. Court was then adjourned at around 16:50.

My Analysis and Opinion:

We may readily concede that CSS was a trade secret, developed in secret, and made available under a comprehensive contract that obligated licensees to maintain the secrecy of the techniques used. It also seems fairly certain that the initial cracking of the CSS involved taking apart the Xing player and seeing how it worked. In order for this action to be a trade secret violation, Johansen's disassembly would have to be an improper use.

In order for it to have been improper, Johansen would have to be laboring under an obligation to maintain the secrecy of the Xing code and the CSS algorithm. The DVD CCA asserts that this obligation existed in the form of the shrinkwrap "agreement" which restricted, among other things, reverse engineering. So the DVD CCA's entire case hinges on whether shrinkwrap "licenses" are enforceable.

Let us put aside the fact that Johansen is Norwegian, where different laws and standards apply; and let us also put aside the fact that he is a minor, who likely can't be bound to contracts without parental consent (again, Norwegian law may differ on this point). Let us concentrate instead on this contract that, by the most tenuous forms of assent, may be considered in force and remove from the licensee a litany of valuable rights, including reverse engineering.

As I stated earlier, it is my adamant position that such documents are pure fiction; that they are not and should not be taken seriously. These instruments have little basis in law, and no basis whatsoever in simple ethics. They run counter to the real and reasonable expectations of consumers when they purchase software; that a sale has taken place, and they hold title to that particular copy of the software, subject to copyright restrictions. The "agreements" seek to alter the terms of the sale after the fact.

Further, these contracts attempt to escape vendors from the provisions of consumer protection laws, "lemon" laws, and remove from consumers their rights under Fair Use provisions of copyright law and, in some cases, the First Amendment (by forbidding discussion of benchmarks). And all one needs to do to assent to such onerous conditions is to, "install and use the software."

If A.H.Robins had attached such a license to its Dalkon Sheild, would it have been upheld? Would thousands of women around the country have found themselves unable to seek damages because they had "agreed" to hold A.H.Robins harmless? If Black&Decker attached such a license to its power saws saying you could only use Black&Decker saw blades, could it be enforced? We might concede they could cancel the warranty, but could they sue you for breach of contract, as DVD CCA has done over CSS?

Even if we were to presume such licenses are enforceable, how could they be said to apply to minors, who cannot be bound to contracts without parental consent? Must we then require that computer stores not sell software of any kind to anyone under age 18?

The idea is worse than ludicrous, it is offensive. No credible argument can be brought to bear that shrinkwrap licenses have any constructive use or benefit -- for consumers or publishers -- much less any foundation in ethics and basic human decency.

Some suggest that the "parade of horribles" that shrinkwraps enable has not happened, and is not likely to happen. I submit that a California corporation seeking a broad injunction, reaching beyond the borders of the state and even the country, to constrain domestic and foreign nationals from engaging in legitimate, ethical behavior to be a "horrible" that even the most paranoid among us could not have anticipated. There can be no further doubt that shrinkwrap licenses are a big, fat, ugly problem, and must not under any circumstances be allowed to stand.

Those who might suggest the GPL is weakened by such a position need not worry. While most commercial software "licenses" purport to constrain use, the GPL constrains copying. Absent a license of any kind, you still have the right to use your lawfully obtained software. You would not, however, have the right to make and distribute copies; the default conditions of copyright law apply. (This is true even if you're a minor.) Right to Use is concomitant with purchase; right to copy is not.

It is difficult to predict how the Judge will rule. Unlike the TRO hearing, the plaintiff was very well prepared. Both sides presented their arguments well. Judge Elfving stated that he wishes to be thorough, and will doubtless spend a good deal of effort considering the arguments. Still, both sides were articulate, and it will depend on who Judge Elfving chooses to believe, so the decision could go either way. Cross your fingers...

Schwab

Unfortunately, the "hacker mentality" that once said, "I can do it myself," is being replaced by the "persuader mentality"

IS that so? Then why is it that I just bought a shirt from copyleft in order to 1. get a cool shirt and 2. donate 4 dollars to the legal defense fund of people like me who are being dragged into court rooms for having the "I can do it myself attitude". I agree with you on some of your point. There are (begin flamebait.h) a whole lot of whiny little losers hopping on the OSS bandwagon pestering companies to open up there software instead of having the triumph of making it themselves (end flamebait.h), but I for one will not give up on open source. We can do it. Linus Torvalds did not say "I'm gonna bug AT&T to open up to source for Unix then I'll study that against Minix and make an OS. He made one based on the functionality of what he wanted. That's the attitude we all need to take.




Munky_v2

As pointed out in the header, you can buy a shirt with the DeCSS code printed on it.

BTW: 4 dollars of each purchase goes to EFF.

Wasn't their a contest somewhere about who could distribute the source in the most creative way? This gets my vote?

David

Check out this link to copyleft .
I am think I am about to make my first purchase from them. I wonder will a cop bust me if I walk down the street with this T-shirt on ;)
By the way part of the profits from this go to the EFF for their defense.

Now if we can just get her to pose in a Slashdot, Beware of Nerd T shirt ...

I resolve to wear my new Slashdot, beware of nerd T-shirt from copyleft to a New Year's Eve party tonight, and maybe even explain it to people. I also resolve to continue hacking (hint to law enforcement: hacking is writing good code, cracking is breaking into other people's systems). How else are we going to get good code, if we don't do it ourselves?

Great idea... I know plenty of ppl that would love to have one of these. Maybe we could get thinkgeek or copyleft to sell 'em too.

I knew the finals week was in the way for the big chunk of people who would've gone to the Bazaar, but it's better this way because I didn't have to be trampled by them. I think the LinuxWorld Expo would require more space in the Javits Convention Center for college folks to move around. I wish I could buy a Slashdot t-shirt from Copyleft

From now on, we shall call Jeff Bates "Cute Little Hemos!"

I can't wait for LWE!
--

I have a rather simple list this year, though it's a lot more than last year (where my list basically amounted to "whatever.")

1) Diamond Rio. My discman just doesn't cut it anymore. Too many CDs, too little space to carry them all with me...

2) A new CD-ROM drive. Ya know, this 12x was top of the line when I bought it. Two weeks later I saw a 24x for the same price. Now I find out it can't read CD-Rs.

3) Slashdot Shirts!

And now for the items that are a bit lower priority, and more of a stretch:

4) A Voodoo 3. Don't start a Voodoo vs. TNT war here, okay? Just agree that it's better than my ATI RagePro.

5) A CD-R drive. Yeah, R, not RW. For some reason I don't quite fully trust the RWs.

6) A new monitor. 640x480 works, but it sucks.

Here's some ideas for the geeks in us:

1) A Happy Hacking Keyboard. A throwback to the Sun Type 3 keyboards, 60 keys, compatible with Macs and PCs.

2) Victorinox Cybertool. Already suggested by many of you, the ultimate pocket knife to have around for us techies.

3) Pretty much anything from thinkgeek.com. Great products, get the shooter glasses and play the unix drinking game :) Plus, they sell stuffed Tux penguins.

4) Shirts from copyleft. Great ones there.

Other nice gifts ideas from Sharper Image and Hotbox. Check out the infinity puzzle at the latter, seems very interesting.

Copyleft has some really cool "geek pride" shirts. I already asked my brother to get me a hat that says "geek" on it! It looks like the prices range from $10-$20. They have an awesome site too! www.copyleft.net

Shaun

Here is a simple list:

Please, Do not buy me:
1. clothing and undergarments. I wear one pair of pants and one /. shirt and buying me crap from the GAP is appreciated but far from needed.
2. the newest Pop music CD the man said at the record store I'de love. I'm sure the Backstreet boys are fine singers, but that'll just be one more coaster in my bin of AOL cds.
3. any food or drink without either: caffeine or alcohol. Let's be realistic. It's either highly caffinated pop/cola or beer going down my throat.

But I would love:
I can get clothes on my own: Buy me toys. Suggestions:
1. Nakamichi's® SoundSpace 8. I like tunes. Anything from The Sharper Image will be most adored.
2. Legos. Any amount, kind or style will be enjoyed on many dull saturday mornings.
3. Now, if you simply can't resist the urge to buy me apparel, then shop at Copyleft or Chaser.
4. Buy me any computer from VA Linux and I'll be a happy man.
5. I need fuel. An espresso/capiccino machine would be really nice. There are some decently priced ones and if you a some money to spend, I would love a pretty nice one.
6. Finally, a nice 62" wide screen tv that fits in my pocket would be nice, and its only $899.

Clothing's cool... Buying geek clothing from Copyleft donates money to various free software groups.

Besides, the FSCK! shirt is cool.

And right now they're running a contest to win a free trip to The Bazaar (the convention in December in NYC).

And on the top of my list is the Simpson's Music CD, the new one is out now, check it out at amazon.com. This link may expire, so just do a search for "Simpsons" in the "Popular Music" sectoin. They've got 4 albums now, if you include the oldest (and really bad) The Simpsons Sing the Blues.

What else.....CDs full of MP3s are good.....or if you know that your geek has a CD Burner, blank CDs are always useful. You can get them for around a buck a piece at your local best buy.

Also, just check out linux.ora.com. If theres a book there that I don't have, I'd be happy to receive it.

Merry Christmas everyone.

• Not that Ford Motor Co. management ever sold a Corsair in the '60's knowing it might flip uncontrollably, or a Mustang in the '70's knowing that because of a dangerous design flaw with its gas tank the car often burst into flames in a rear impact. Stupid customers should have figured that out on their own... and hell, DARWIN! :-)
  
• While we're on the subject of Ford Motor Co., why don't we discuss their use of Jewish slave labor during Nazi Germany? Yes, in Germany, through the subsidiary "Ford Werke AG." I'm sure there were plenty of other firms, even car manufacturer such as Daimler who committed such grievous crimes -- Ford Motor claims they lost contact with the subsidiary after hostilities erupted... which might be believed except for Henry Ford's and Adolf Hitler's close friendship. It seems Ford liked Fascism. And hell, those wretched slaves could have fled... didn't they see what was coming? Awwwweeeee hell.... DARWIN! :-)
  
• Nor was Occidental Petroleum really responsible for those flames popping out of Love Canal waters, nor the many illnesses in the Love Canal community caused by their dumping. Those self-sufficient and intelligent people could have moved! And hell... DARWIN! :-)
  
• Nor was Union Carbide really responsible for the thousands of deaths in Bhopal after they accidentally released cyanide gas into a city of millions, never mind the hundreds of thousands who were permanently injured from breathing cyanide. But those pesky Indian people should have figured out that their employer and neighbor was playing with dangerous chemicals. Right? Awe hell... DARWIN :-)
  
• Let's get back to those pesky Nazi fascists with a repose to the times of Swiss banking bliss when huge sums of gold just appeared out of nowhere from Nazi Germany and into the coffers of the Swiss banks. And why should those Swiss bankers concern themselves with annoying issues of morality and ethics in wartime Europe? They're neutral! And hell, should those gold fillings go to waste? DARWIN! :-)
  
• I'm sure you wouldn't call those twenty five employees, mostly women, killed in the '91 Imperial Food Products Poultry Plant when managers locked the exit doors after fire erupted because those good-for-nothing local workers might steal a few chickens, crispy and ready to eat I'm sure, while fleeing to save their lives. And shouldn't those workers have known their bosses might feel a little concerned? They could have quit; they didn't have to take that job; they didn't have to show up for work that September day. Awwwwweee, hell. DARWIN! :-)
  
• How about the more recent JCO Company's criticality nuclear accident which irradiated a town filled with "unnecessary" children, elderly, people... you know, citizens. Oh yeah... DARWIN! :-( I don't feel like smiling anymore.
  
• Monsanto wouldn't sell seeds infected with a Terminator gene, ostensibly to save themselves from "Seed Piracy" if the net effect of this technology would be to destroy nearby farms which didn't also purchase Monsanto seeds. Would they? DARWIN! :-(
  
• General Electric wouldn't stifle investigative reporting on the American nuclear power industry within their subsidiary NBC, would they? Would CBS kill a news story on "60 Minutes" containing a "Smoking Gun", ahem -- so to speak -- when a cigarette executive decided to blow the whistle, and it just happens to turn out that a firm about to purchase CBS also owned stock in the very cigarette company 60 Minutes was investigating? Naaaa, I'm sure such things don't happen. DARWIN! :-(
  

• They never pirated on-the-fly disc compression software from Stacker, Co. by releasing Stacker's binary unlicensed in DOS 6. Of course, courts say something different... but that's just the big bad government talking.
  
• Hey, who would blame Microsoft for checking to make certain users were running legitimate copies of MS-DOS before starting Windows 3.1? I mean, they wrote it and if end-users want to screw themselves by buying a competitors product, why should they get to enjoy the benefits of their purchased copy of Windows?
  
• It's OK for Microsoft to release Internet Explorer for free, even though it cost $100 million a year to develop, because that's "innovation" in the market place. If a foreign firm tried this (say with discount memory prices lower than manufacturing costs) the big bad government might call it "Product Dumping"; but hey, that's the big bad government talking!
  
• And Microsoft should have every right to form exclusionary contracts with OEM vendors. They don't have to ship Windows! Why they could just sell the computer with a blank disk! Or maybe an old copy of DR-DOS! :-)
  

If anyone is actually reading this, you can find the shirt designs over here. I'm guessing that's the designs and shirts this topic was about, anyway, I think the "News for Nerds" looks the best. I wonder when they will announce them on the main page?

I like the suggestion of a 'click here to donate' button, and this is perhaps more like 'street performers' work. In my town it doesn't seem very lucrative (simple begging often seems to get better money) but the vastly larger audience available online might make all the difference.

Another point I rarely see mentioned is the value of physical objects. Perhaps I'm being retro here, but much of what I'm willing to pay money for is the physical medium the content comes on. The CD with liner notes, the nicely bound volume. I don't want everything that way, and I agree that selling content doesn't work very well. However, producing and distributing media costs money and it makes sense to me to pay for them. This is a lot like the model behind commercial linux distributions, but I rarely hear it applied to artistic works.

This means no intellectual property, you can release the content freely, but feed back a little bit of the purchase price for distributed media to the artist . copyleft runs sort of like this. Publish on demand could help with this (and to some extent solve the problem of how to serialize a novel) by letting the publisher collect orders in batches and then fire off a run. This should scale well with the popularity of the work. CDs are a case where the technology is better developed: lots up to 100 or so can be done with with CD burners, 500-10000 with short run pressings.

There is the worry that another publisher will take the released content and undersell without supporting the author. This is quite likely to happen, but there are couteracting forces: If we've decided that a material object is what we're charging money for we can compete on the basis of quality, design and packaging. Even if the content is freely distributable, the cover doesn't have to be. People can buy the 'official' version because it's recommended by the author, because it donates to a cause they believe in, because it has better cover art/liner notes. Some will go with the cheaper edition, but who's to say that's bad. Is it really worse than the current system of giving most of the profit to the retailer and the publisher (as distinct from the author)?

I've seen this sort of thing tried by a few people, mostly selling CD-ROMs like irtc.org or cdrom.comcheapbytes.