Slashdot Mirror

http://www.jennicam.org/ggallery/99_0108.jpg

Yes, you will. I didn't spend hours looking for this, I swear!

Not a bad idea for some of them.*shudder*

Try this Jenni Cam

No wonder our naked web princess has gained 40 pounds in the last year.

Does this mean we'll get Jennicam! with sound.

Joy!

No. Really, a case can be made for DRM... just not the DRM envisioned by the cronies at the various AAs out there.

Let's examine all the bad things about DRM:

1. It kills fair use. Well, yes, but that's an implementation detail. It need not have to. In fact, I'd argue that it should be legislated that any mandatory DRM mechanism should protect fair use rights (and I generally hate more laws). That this scenario is unlikely is an attribute of the political climate and intense content provider lobbying rather than a defect of the principles of DRM. But, imagine a DRM mechanism which automatically releases copyright material into the public domain when the copyright term expires.

2. It stifles "sharing" and enforces "property" rights on things which shouldn't be property. True, but that is a legal and philosophical debate. The fact is that people are generally willing to accept restricted licenses for using something in order to pay less to have access. IOW, I can either pay an artist big bucks to record an album for me, or hope he records one, and don't undercut his efforts to sell them for $10 a pop once I have my copy. A third option, popular in the 1950s for classical music recordings, is to have content produced by prior subscription: when enough subscriptions are sold, the recording is made and distributed to the subscribers. This strikes at the nature of copyright itself, and whether it should have a moral and legal basis. While the existing terms are outrageous, and the music industry probably does gouge artists, DRM is nothing more than a tool for enforcing an agreement. It is the reasonableness of the agreement that should be examined, not the tool.

3. DRM stifles creation of independent content and raises the barrier to entry for independent artists. This is true if (a) DRM use is always mandated, (b) content is difficult or expensive to protect, and/or (c) content designed for mass distribution is difficult or expensive to protect. If this is the case, then clearly DRM is being exploited to restrict access to production and distribution channels: it may prevent you from making an unprotected video for your grandmother or it may prevent you from streaming samples of your music free to anyone in order to get recognized. I don't discount this as a goal of the nefarious AAs out there. However, that's clearly abuse of a monopoly or oligopoly and should be exposed as such.

4. People are too stupid to realize what they are about to lose -- they don't understand how bad DRM could be. Yes, people are stupid. Just look at what leaders democracies elect. But if we "hacking 3l337e" are incapable of educating them, then some of the blame falls on our shoulders. It may be tough, but replacing "stupid" above with "ignorant" (which is a curable condition) would not be a bad start. I am not suggesting this is easy: the public has been conditioned to accept restrictions of civil liberties in the name of preventing future crime (witness the whole DMCA fiasco and post-9/11/2001 "bend over while I rape your rights" hysteria). Yet, when it comes to accepting legislation regarding potentially very oppressive technologies, the state is generally "trusted". Nevertheless, attempts have to be made, including educating what few legislators may not have been bought yet, and are sympathetic to our concerns.

5. DRM will cause me to lose control of my computer. It will become a glorified TV. Again, this is certainly possible. However, DRM could also permit your computer to cache content that you have not yet licensed but are likely to, or keep secure other people's content. The issue isn't so much, Digital Rights ement, but rather the scope of what is Managed. No, it shouldn't be the whole computer.

That's still a lot of reasons to be wary about DRM as it's envisioned today. All the responses to concerns above are of the "yeah, but it doesn't have to be that way" form, and until we are sure it won't be that way, we are wise to be distrustful. But, it helps to look at a case where DRM would make perfect sense.

Webcam Now offers free hosting and download of webcam images, and text and voice chat services. Their site caters to "Friends and Family" (hmm, I smell a trademark infringement suit) as well as "Unmonitored" sections (yes, mostly free amateur exhibitionist porn). Anyone can get an account and upload images to their heart's content, to be served up to Java applets in viewers' browsers. The "free" view rate is 6 frames per minute, and a "pay" rate of 60 frames per minute is available for (I think) US$9.95 a month. This is rather generous, Jennicam updates free images at the rate of once every 15 minutes. Smart move, actually -- they're basically selling bandwidth on the basis of desired content that costs them nothing.

The (black) hack potential is obvious: say I don't want to pay $10 a month, but still want a frame per second refresh or I want to roll my own client (white hack). How can Webcam Now throttle access to their data? More importantly, how can they prevent me from redistributing the images I get?

The obvious answer is an authenticated communication channel that permits faster request rates and an encrypted channel between their image servers and my display. This does not make it impossible to capture what the display shows, but likely makes it difficult enough to thwart casual infringement and severely affect the resolution of what I capture.

Without DRM used to keep the image data secret between their servers and my display, those images could be redistributed anywhere. What if someone scrapes them for their own paid "amateur porn" site outside of the legal jurisdictions where Webcam Now operates? While I'm sure the exhibitionists who use Webcam Now's services don't mind being seen, they'd probably be pretty miffed if someone's making a tidy profit from their free shows: the $9.95 a month probably seems reasonable for Webcam Now to collect per fast viewer to pay for the bandwidth, but heck, if the viewership justifies image scrapers, why not set up their own adult site? They'd leave Webcam Now, and much of the fast-streaming revenue would dry up. While some might exploit the exposure in order to break into the professional porn industry, the true amateurs would probably be upset: somehow being presented as an "unmonitored" video is different than being scraped and represented as "hard core slutty filth". I'd bet that paid fast-streaming porn subsidizes much of the free slow-streaming parts of that site, including the "family" stuff.

On a related note, what if a couple want to do a private long-distance "show" for eachother? Whether they chose to record their cyber-sexcapades or not, they'd probably like the content to remain unviewable except on certain equipment, lest it be redistributed. DRM to the rescue.

Given that the pornography industry seams to be one of the early adopters of new technology (it is rumoured that it fueled the demand for VCRs), perhaps it should drive how DRM is implemented and deployed.

The other aspect of this is controlled access to bandwidth. As it stands, Webcam Now uses trivial encryption on their images, and trusted Java applets to not pull images faster than permitted. While an authenticated session could result in traffic throttled at the source, this requires the server to enforce the stream-throttling policy. As anyone knows, the less a server has to do, the better it scales. Letting the client enforce the access rate policy is a step in this direction. However, once the client application is cracked, it's game over. The current solution involves either accepting the policy enforcement on the part of each server, or a multi-tiered approach where dedicated aggregation and policy servers sit between client machines and data servers. This works rather well, but increases operating costs: the more work you can off-load to the client, the cheaper your operation becomes. However, securely off-loading access policies to client PCs is not possible without DRM.

So, where does this leave us? DRM certainly has legitimate uses, and need not be overbearing or invasive. In fact, it should be deployed in very restricted areas, where secure computing or encrypted content needs to be managed. Example include secure client-side web proxies, display, and audio devices (though it's value in the latter is questionable since "adequate" resolution analog recording is so easy). It should not be a ubiquitious part of a central processor, nor should it enforce draconian measures that are unconstitutional. The burden of complying with constitutional fair use rights should lie with the DRM implementer.

<flame suit off>

from the not-as-good-as-jennycam dept.

I believe you were referring to Jennicam and not a porn site, right?

right?

:-P

If it's already a classic in one form, why try to remake it?

Last night I saw a TV rerun that thoroughly illustrates this logic. Diagnosis Murder is probably the most unabashedly clichéd, corny, gimmicky and just plain stupid show in recent history. But I'd wanted to see this particular episode for a long time, every since reading Jenni Ringley's mini-memoir of her stint as a TV murder victim.

If you're a JenniCam fan, don't watch this episode to see a lot of JR. She gets maybe 5 seconds of screen time, plus a B&W head-and-neck "autopsy photo." So why bother seeking out the original Cam Girl for a part that could be played by almost any 20-something female? Business. JR probably got more exposure posing with the rest of the cast for PR photos than she did on the show itself. She was there to help geneate buzz, not to act.

Seems to work for Jenni.

If it meant that I got to choose who the money went to - that is, that it went to the content creator and not an agent, distributor, middleman, or some other breed of fuckwit five-percenter - then yes, yes, a thousand times YES!

I don't think the problem is that - as one poster put it - that the 'Net will become one giant pay site - content creators should get paid for good work. The problem will be keeping scumbag content-control freaks (Sony, RIAA, MPAA, the U.S. Congress) from mucking it up and taking a cut.

I think it would be the ideal way, though, to pay for good independent content like Penny Arcade, Sinfest, and even Jennicam - and all the other content-based sites I like, but for whom I'm not willing to enter into an expensive revolving subscription agreement.

We'll see if it actually happens...

OK,
- B
--

Time to go to bed, since Jenni has. I'll dream of a cut-and-dry election, where the ballot-counting devices work instantly.

Cool, now we just need to get a Ricochet adapter and buy one for Jenni.

Kevin Fox

Face it folks, JenniCam is the most downloaded woman on the Internet. There is simply no comparison between people spamming USENET (who the heck reads that anymore? ;) and someone who has hundreds of thousands of users per DAY grabbing images every five minutes.

Besides, she runs Linux on Alpha with Apache...and uses a Mac to snag images.

Her sever is up, but she is definetly getting down...

http://www.jennicam.org/gallery/funk27.jpg

Jennicam.com is not pr0n unless you consider the Jennicam pr0n. Jennicam.com points to jennicam.org.

being down.

- - - -

Maybe the poster with the period at the end of the username is the real Bruce Perens, and the poster without the period is the imposter. Or maybe neither one of them is the real Bruce Perens. Hell, I could open up an account with the username "Bruce Willis", but that doesn't mean I run around high-rises and throw German terrorists out of windows. For that matter, how do we know that CmdrTaco is CmdrTaco? Maybe the real Rob Malda runs Jennicam, and Slashdot is run by a Malda impersonator. For crying out loud, Bruce Perens could be Rob Malda! The fake Rob Malda, that is. The real Rob Malda is Bruce Willis. Christ, how do we really know?

Well somehow I think that you should be able to create information for a profit, just as you can build a car for profit. If a car is unlocked in the street, that doesn't make it public domain, does it? Neither is an uncoded (or too-weak coded) radio signal "public domain".

If I steal a car or copy copyrighted material, you (or rather the insurance company) could argue that the owner ought to have locked the car/encrypt the data, but that doesn't make my action any more legal.

This is not a "company vs the web" issue it is "company A vs company B" where company B is freeriding.

C'mon. Sure information wants to be free, but few of us wants *all* our information s to be free. (unless you are Jenni)

This fat chick?

I suppose its a matter of oppinion... What does this have to do with Project Gutenberg anyways?

The early porn sites were immediately shut down because the volume of incoming requests either knocked the server offline or the administrators blocked it because the level of traffic was interfering with their other connections. The initial jennicam, a then free, unedited camera set up in a then college student's dorm room was publicized well enough and consumed enough bandwidth to virtually knock the university off the net for several days, and the incoming connection requests slowed their connections to outside down for several days even after the administrators shut the camera down. This is far different from the routine delivery of legal threats that shuts down sites today.

There are two main sticking points in the censorship law, whether you like the idea or not.
one: you must use an 'approved' filter, and if you don't your ISP must filter your connection for you and can charge you for it. Linux users may start saving now since no Linux filtering scheme is even being considered.
two: you cannot store your 'possibly' illegal content overseas, because the regulations make the ISP responsible for what you access.
It should be noted, the UK had a case where they court decided that even though the content of a site was hosted overseas, the owner was a local and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the local laws.
The censorship laws are going to kill the internet, because they even have the right to filter your email, and if you use SSL connections they can be terminated if there is a suspicion you are accessing illegal material. I watch jennicam and there is often scenes which would be bannned under the new laws, so I guess I will be denied Jennis' smiling face.
Also as a funny aside, the source code for the Linux kernel is littered with swear words that would make it restricted.

• I never got paid for Empire! by Billy Dee Williams (Score: 2) Monday, July 19 @10:22 PM EDT
  
• WHITE DEVIL'S CONSPIRACY by Al Sharpton (Score: 1) Monday, July 19 @10:23 PM EDT
• very funny movie by David Duke (Score: 1) Monday, July 19 @10:30 PM EDT
• S&M in Jedi by Carrie Fisher (Score: 3, Erotic) Monday, July 19 @10:31 PM EDT
• It's chilly down here! by Monica Lewinsky (Score: 2) Monday, July 19 @10:32 PM EDT

Censoring films is one thing, I don't agree with it, but its feasible. There's a finite number of movies produced that need to be examined and a whole industry that can just be disallowed based on the genre (the hardcore porn genre, or maybe even soft core, I have no idea what the Australian censorship board views as offensive)

Censoring web sites is pretty close to impossible. There are the obvious ones, I would expect that Hustler and any page attached to that domain would be blocked for instance. What about individual pages though? I can set up a page on a free web server such as Tripod or GeoCities with objectionable content. GeoCities would eventually yank it, but Tripod seems to not care. Personal web pages with material they would find offensive probably numbers in the millions. For an ISP to selectively block these pages isn't feasible, so their only choice would be to block sites that have one or more user pages with objectionable material. I.e. block GeoCities, Tripod, AOL and a large number of other providers. Great, except for the small fraction of objectionable pages on these servers there is a large number of non-objectional pages. A few of these even have useful material.

Basically the end result would be that a site such as slashdot could be censored from all Australian internet users if it ever were to fail Australia's movie screening process. Oh yeah, there's a small box on slashdot which contains the latest image from JenniCam as well as links to Rotten.com and so on.

Check it out at http://www.jennicam.org/

One of the first personal webcams. Probably the first to be in a bedroom (well, a dormroom) 24/7. www.jennicam.org

I've long believed that privacy is a failing concept and that if we were going to successfully move forward, we'd need to relax about the whole thing.

First off, let's look at our terms: There's a difference between the legal conecpt of privacy and the popular notion of it. The legal definition implies doing what you want without other people interfering in it. If you want to drink too much tonite, then it's nobody else's business. The popular notion involves not allowing 'them' to know what's going on beyond the curtain and what you're doing in bed but ashamed of.

The popular notion of privacy is untenable. 'Set information free' is necessary for us to evolve into a more automated world. It's too easy to collect information on people, because that information is so useful. This type of privacy will continue to disintigrate, either grudgingly or with cheers for what we'll be able to do. One way or another, it's going away.

The result of this is that we need to alter our conception of the legal concept of privacy. It's no longer enough to allow people security through ambiguity. 'They' will find out what you are doing one way or another. We need to start seriously evaluating methods of preventing eachother from interfering with our choices even though they know what we are doing. You should be free to eat a big mac, or drink a beer, or buy a copy of Big'uns without fear of reprisal...not because nobody knows, but because people aren't allowed to care.

If we start looking at these kinds of solutions, people will stop worrying about the strawman argument of 'privacy' and start welcoming the change that comes with freedom of information. People without fear aren't afraid to share about themselves. Some even welcome it (ever see JenniCam?

Privacy is dead. Long live privacy.