Slashdot Mirror

"The other concern -- that a liability based on a link to another site simply because the other site happened to contain DeCSS or some other circumvention technology in the midst of other perfectly appropriate content could be overkill -- also is readily dealt with. The offense under the DMCA is offering, providing or otherwise trafficking in circumvention technology. An essential ingredient, as explained above, is a desire to bring about the dissemination. Hence, a strong requirement of that forbidden purpose is an essential prerequisite to any liability for linking."

He explains that this is OK by analogy of defamation law: if you say something bad about a public figure, part of what they have to prove to convict you is that you knew it was false when you said it. So, your state of mind at the time of the alleged crime becomes legally significant.

The judge is looking for a way to uphold the DMCA without creating a chilling effect that will prevent webmasters everywhere from having to worry "am I going to get in trouble for linking to the wrong thing?" But the act of deliberately linking to a URL cannot be distinguished from desiring to disseminate the information at that URL. That is the whole point of linking: disseminating the information at the other end.

Do you think the judge has noticed that the New York Times -- the same newspaper he frequently references in the titles of precedent-setting legal decisions -- has linked to the DeCSS links on at least three occasions -- April 28, June 16, and July 14? Most reasonable people would conclude that the Times had "a desire to bring about the dissemination" [of DeCSS] in so doing. What else could it have had in mind?

The Times obviously has a vested interest in keeping it legal to link. In the June 16 article, titled "Is Linking Illegal?", the opening sentence is: "A crucial aspect of online journalism is the ability to garnish articles with hyperlinks that instantly refer readers to Web sites related to newsworthy issues."

Do you think the Times will get more involved in this issue? How about if 2600 replaces its links with meta-links (links to links) -- exactly as the Times did -- and gets re-sued?

Jamie McCarthy

Sure, the economy is doing well. However, that has between little and nothing to do with Clinton. The president has little control over the economy, beyond his control over taxes, going to war, and a few other significant acts, none of which Clinton has really executed. You'll be hard pressed to find any respected economist, even though they're mostly liberals, that will back Clinton's assertions. In all reality, the state of the economy has more to do with the Greenspan, technology, and arguably Reagan's tough stance against taxes and union abuse.

How about Paul Krugman, Nobel-prize winning economist at MIT? Would you consider him "respected", or is that know-nothing idiot too much of a liberal? (Side note: ever wonder why most respected economists are liberal?? Not because they know what they're talking about! Obviously not that!!)

Of course, I had to look long and hard to find it--all the way to yesterday's New York Times.

According to Krugman, while Clinton isn't wholly responible for the economic boom, or anywhere near it, he *is* largely responsible for balancing the budget, which in turn *is* largely responsible for keeping interest rates low and perpetuating our roaring economy. Conversely, Krugman argues, if Dole had been elected in 1996, and had enacted his promised tax cut, the boom would almost certainly have been shorter lived. Amazingly enough, Bush is proposing a tax cut and which looks remarkably like Dole's, and some pretty impressive spending increases on top of that.

I think I'll let the Nobel-prize winner take it from here: "Not long ago America faced a choice between sober, sensible fiscal discipline and huge, irresponsible tax cuts. We chose discipline, and were rewarded with growth beyond our wildest dreams. So why would anyone today propose exactly the kind of irresponsibility we were lucky to avoid four years ago?"

It hasn't been a lack of and available suite on a whole, It has just been the lack of an application that has rock solid file format compatiblilty. Either way, if it is true, Microsoft will have to abide by the rules of the Gnome Foundation's GUI standard. Funny thing is, it doesn't matter if Microsoft ports as long as in the near future Netscape, Mozilla, Lynx (?) and Gaeleon (sp) can support Office.Net right? So their attempt to kill Microsofts suite would not really work .

Smart is as smart does: staying 15 steps ahead.

Nuff Respec'

DeICQLady
7D3 CPE

note to moderators: this ain't redundant. the guy asked a question. and nobody replied yet. (i think)

For the hell of it..

http://www1 0.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000813mag-qa boies.html

The NY Times has an article which contains a snippet from Clinton's interview yesterday on Fox:

And in the midst of his sober recounting of the Camp David talks, Mr. Clinton offered a defense on a subject that Mr. Gore had been ridiculed for: his suggestion that he deserved credit for inventing the Internet. "And by the way, Mr. Gore did sponsor the legislation" that led to creating the Internet, Mr. Clinton said. "Part of my job, since I'm not running is to correct the record here."

I'm actually glad that the Gore camp has finally been able to get over the embarrasment caused by the media circus that took over Gore's comment. Check out this old Telecom Digest post for an interesting synopsis of how Gore's comments were mis-interpreted, and he was mis-quoted.

This does underscore what for me is a big issue in this campaign, the marked difference between what the two cadidates have done with their lives. I think when we compare the two of them, it's clear that Gore comes out looking very good.

Bush hasn't really been very successful at anything. He ran a so-so oil company, which was built primarily on his father's contacts, and with money from people who knew his father. He joined the Texas national guard during the Vietnam-US war, arguably the defining event of his generation. He managed to get elected to the post of governor of Texas, one of the weakest in the country .

In contrast, Gore served in Vietnam, despite the doubts both he and his father had about the war. He spent 9 years in Congress, 7 in the Senate, and 8 as vice-president. In all of those posts, he was an active participant (like most of the Congressional class of '76). Gore was one of the first to introduce into the political mainstream, and champion, issues that are so important to us today. The environment, the net, campaign finance reform (the Buddhist temple fiasco was uncharacteristic, btw, no one asks what contributions church visits result in).

I don't think the differences on fiscal issues between the two candidates are great. In fact, Gore, with his stated commitment to a balanced budget, seems to me more of a fiscally sound bet. Bush's tax cut is of course a great buy for wealthy individuals, you get over 1 trillion in tax breaks for only 200 million in up-front cost. Great pay-off. Both cadidates are pro-business, except Bush is pro-oil and tobacco business more than Gore is. The manner in which some big-businesses buy politiicans, who then turn around and say they are encouraging entrepreneurship is extremely distasteful to me.

The social issues space is quite murky as well. Gore does want more tools for parents to control and understand what their kids are doing/watching. A lot of busy parents feel the same way, and I personally think this is understandable (and yeah, I agree with peacfire as well). Gore's been beaten on the head over his switch from moderate pro-lifer to pro-choice. Some of this can be ascribed to personal growth, perhaps as he's seen his daughters grow up, but it also correlate well with his easing into national politics, so it may be dis-ingenuous.

What turns me off completely about Bush though, is the manner in which he has defended the Texas legal system as it runs rough-shod over the rights of defendants in capital cases. The attidue seems to be that if a Texas jury finds a defendant guilty, then nothing should stand in the way of his/her execution. Given the numerous problems with the public defender system in Texas, and the sheer number of people on death-row, and who have been executed, I'm certain Texas has executed someone who is innocent. People within the US do not realize this, but Texas' record on capital cases is considered a major problem by Human Rights agencies, the UN, and people in other countries.

In sum, I don't think Bush deserves to be president, he hasn't done anything significant, and this country doesn't give credence the principle of succession.

This New York Times story is a great overview of his candidacy. From this other story,

John Hagelin is a quantum physicist who preaches the benefits of transcendental meditation. He runs the physics department at an Iowa university named for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. As the presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in 1996, he won exactly 0.12 percent of the vote.

Sure, his name recognition is close to zero. The media call his camp "the Perot supporters," they don't even use his name. But still he's pretty cool.

However the Reform Party has split in two parts and is deeply troubled, as this New York Times story describes. The Party probably won't be able to challenge the other two in national elections for a long time, if ever.

This New York Times story is a great overview of his candidacy. From this other story,

John Hagelin is a quantum physicist who preaches the benefits of transcendental meditation. He runs the physics department at an Iowa university named for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. As the presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in 1996, he won exactly 0.12 percent of the vote.

Sure, his name recognition is close to zero. The media call his camp "the Perot supporters," they don't even use his name. But still he's pretty cool.

However the Reform Party has split in two parts and is deeply troubled, as this New York Times story describes. The Party probably won't be able to challenge the other two in national elections for a long time, if ever.

This New York Times story is a great overview of his candidacy. From this other story,

John Hagelin is a quantum physicist who preaches the benefits of transcendental meditation. He runs the physics department at an Iowa university named for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. As the presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in 1996, he won exactly 0.12 percent of the vote.

Sure, his name recognition is close to zero. The media call his camp "the Perot supporters," they don't even use his name. But still he's pretty cool.

However the Reform Party has split in two parts and is deeply troubled, as this New York Times story describes. The Party probably won't be able to challenge the other two in national elections for a long time, if ever.

No one has mentioned the best part of the article, this sidebar
mmm.. exploding tvs... gooood...

channel.nytimes.com.

The irony involved in the Times' posting their article on how TV will follow music down the digital gravity well on their registration-required Web site, and our using the back door to read it for free, is tasty.

Here's another article (free registration required) from the New York Times on this subject: "French Nazi Memorabilia Case Presents Jurisdiction Dilemma"

It's a pretty interesting debate - how do national laws apply to the Internet?

The New York Times (free registration required) is reporting here that a man has been convicted for operating an internet gambling business that took bets from Americans. I would never have predicted this outcome, since he estabished the business in Antigua (where it's legal) and was himself out of the country when the bets were taken. If he weren't an American citizen, I don't believe he could have been prosecuted. I find this ruling disturbing, since it implies that one can be prosecuted according to the laws of one's home country, even if one's activities are legal where they take place. I'm hoping this ruling is overturned, as it's completely wrong, IMO. Using this logic, some despotic regime would be within its rights to prosecute its citizens for criticizing it while in the U.S.

It's a pretty interesting debate - how do national laws apply to the Internet?

The New York Times (free registration required) is reporting here that a man has been convicted for operating an internet gambling business that took bets from Americans. I would never have predicted this outcome, since he estabished the business in Antigua (where it's legal) and was himself out of the country when the bets were taken. If he weren't an American citizen, I don't believe he could have been prosecuted. I find this ruling disturbing, since it implies that one can be prosecuted according to the laws of one's home country, even if one's activities are legal where they take place. I'm hoping this ruling is overturned, as it's completely wrong, IMO. Using this logic, some despotic regime would be within its rights to prosecute its citizens for criticizing it while in the U.S.

This is the serious problem in universities across the country today!

C-Net Article
MSNBC Article
CNN
NY Times Article

But then again, why believe in DNA when you can have Jerry Falwell tell you it doesn't exist?

Sign away your immortal soul and read the article?

The govt. will argue that this will not do, especially when the country is being threatened by all sorts of mean and nasty people (mad hackers, Chinese nuclear physicists, etc.). I guess one of the fall-outs of the fall of the eastern bloc, was that western governments need new "threats" to justify spending billions on military/spying technology. They are therefore claiming that in order to protect us all, they have to develop this technology whereby they will be able to listen to everything we say (and in fact who knows that they aren't doing so already -- we are only discussing laws here, not what they really get up to).

The reason they have let more rigourous cable privacy laws through so far, is that up until now, cable modems weren't on the radar of the types who run these agencies. Now it appears that we will all be using cable modems to talk with each other, they sure as hell will try and listen to it, whether it's legal or not.

A discussion of some of the legal implications of this is in the NY Times "Cyber Law Journal" (free reg. blah blah blah), here. According to this article, the govt. will make a play to apply telephone privacy standards to e-mail (e-mail standards are even lower), make it look as if they are increasing privacy, and then apply the whole nine yards to cable, thereby bringing a whole lot more data into their net.

Given what might or not be construed as legal activity in the near future -- listening to mp3s, wearing copyleft t-shirts, etc. -- it does not look good.

fff

I forgot to include a link to this story in the NY times (free registration required). It talks about how German publishers are trying to stop the sales of books at a discount. It's just one more example of how the net is tearing down the old ways of doing business. And I think it's a good thing to, once in a while, clean out the old, ossified structures and replace them with something fresh.

Rather Interesting Records serves as something of a sister site to Fax. It's run by, and releases records primarily by, a guy by the name of Uwe Schmidt. Typical of electronic music artists, he goes under a variety of pseudonyms, the most well-known being Atom Heart and Lassigue Bendthaus(A recent NYTimes article about LB's latest release, a collection of Kraftwerk songs covered as Brazilian music, can be found here).

There's an official Rather Interesting site, but it hasn't been updated in a while. In yet another bit of shameless self-promotion, there is a sister site to 2350.org, at www.datacide.org.

Picture of t-shirt

So, here's JonKatz's recipe for success: take an article from the mainstream press, stir in personal emails and comments from slashdot, add a dash of half-baked analysis, and sprinkle with a few painful misspellings.

Taco, how much are you paying this guy?

Go Here

http://ww w10.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/article s/28laser.html

Oh when, oh when will people learn to substitute www. with www10.

Yes, it's been done before but those login required sites annoy me to no end.

Go here.

here
---

Appeals court grants Napster reprieve
Federal Judge Allows Napster To Continue Music Trading
Court grants stay of Napster injunction
--

Check out this story on the New York Times...
For Many Online Music Fans, Court Ruling is a Call to Arms

Yeah, I noticed this too. But that seems to be their regular policy and not due to some fear of an injunction against linking to site that in turn links to DeCSS.

See this article on Microsoft's latest appeal in their antitrust case for an example. The URL for MS' actual press release hasn't been made a link either, however, there are links provided to more information on the NYTimes site itself. I think it is more an IP issue in that they don't want to link to sites without first obtaining permission from the site's owners.

While the URL of the site is printed at the bottom of the article, it is not linked. This seems too coincidental...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Here.

The NYTimes article should be availabe at this link. But it's the result of a search, so there might be weird session issues. (Free registration required, as always.)

They reported this on Saturday as an idea that would not go forward. But the company they hired to do it specializes in this kind of marketing.

Kook9 out.

Due to a backlash, ny New York Times reported on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers.". The article can probably still be found at the New York Times for a fee. The funniest promotional idea of theirs, though, can be found in the bathroom.

This is no longer the case. According to my New York Times on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers." I'm sure there's a copy available on the online NY Times archive, for a fee. :P ABC was facing a tremendous backlash, and changed their minds about this being a good idea. There may still be references available at the New York Times. The funniest promotional idea for ABC, however, can be found in the bathroom.

ABC Backs Away From Using Voice Mail to Promote Lineup

http://www10.nyt imes.com/books/00/07/23/reviews/000723.23kinglt.ht ml

It's a pretty in-depth review of the Harry Potter books by Stephen King. He's generally impressed by them, although he has two main complaints:

1. The latest book is too long (700+ pages)

2. The first book is being adapted for the big screen

Pause, digest, pause. An obvious case of the blood-stained crucible calling the witch's cauldron black. Now I realize that King is writing from the lofty peaks of successful writer Olympus, but c'mon now...

There wouldn't be any huge parent companies anymore (at least temporarily). We would all get our news from smaller, independent outlets.

We would all get our news from smaller, independent outlets. We would, of course, have to decide for ourselves on the credibility of said news outlets. That in and of itself is a scary thought, we would have to make an important decision with information that we would have to go out and gather ourselves.

The foundation of today's news media is organizations like United Press International, BBC News, National Public Radio News, the Associated Press, the New York Times. These are all outstanding news organizations.

The Washington Post (a pretty good paper) owns Newsweek, an alright magazine, though its website is now hosted by MSNBC.

US News and World Report is also pretty good.

Skipping the rest of the good newspapers and the plethora of great magazines around the country (as well as the really bad ones) we get to Corporate Media. Time isn't really bad per se, but knowing what we know about Time Warner (I am an employee of the company) I personally stay away.

I stay away from all U.S. television news sources for reliable information, except for the excellent Newshour with Jim Lehrer and C-SPAN, both independent media. The former rocks, and I live in the neighborhood where Lehrer grew up; the latter isn't really news but has very informative content on current issues.

Okay! I hope I have convinced everyone that you don't have to worry about your news source if you know where to go. Even if Time Warner bought up half of these news souces somehow, it could never get them all. Also remember that if good journalists realize they are working for a company with a deteriorating reputation, they jump ship.

It would be nice if the NY Times or other big newspapers had really technically sophisticated people on their staffs. If this article had been written by someone who had used a packet sniffer before, it would be more interesting. For example, the article says:

"In making their case, supporters of cybersurveillance say that the only way to track e-mail is by combing through all of the messages on a particular network, because e-mail consists of a series of digital packets that are broken apart at the sending end and transmitted along multiple electronic paths before being reconstituted by the recipient's computer. "

What are they talking about ? If they tap the wire going to either the sending or the receiving computers, they are guaranteed to get all the packets used in the communication and no other ones, while listening to the whole network just gives you the whole network, and then you have to do a bunch of processing. If they had a person who had actually tried to intercept other people's communication write this article (how many people do you know who went through a phase of net-stalking some girl in high school or college?) then it would be much clearer.

This is the no-registration link .

James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, doesn't. Not now that he's taken a pro bono immigration case and seen how this stuff really works. See this article from the NY Times magazine.

Did John plan to write a review? It is hard to tell if he is summarizing the content of the book or propviding his own political commentary.

For another review of the book check out this link.

The prologue to the book and another review are available on the New York times site (free registration required...).

An interview Mr. Rosen gave to NPR's All things Considered can be heard here. Note: For some reason I cannot listen to this on my computer...

He manages to leave out many of Mr. Rosen's arguments for why private speech should be protected, and why these protections should be extended to our electronic utterances.

Mr. Rosen points out that much of our private speech only makes sense in context, and that that context includes our relationship with the person we are communicating with and their knowledge about us. Thus my letters to my wife or my best friend may make no sense when read by a perfect stranger (such as a police officer, judge or jury member).

He also touches on how allowing stranger access to our private thoughts and communication infringes our freedom. The title of the book even comes from a tenet of Jewish law that protects others from being watched without thier permission (thus the 'unwanted gaze').

IMHO It is much more important to publicize and emphasize the real reasons privacy is a basic freedom, rather than just repeating privacy like a mantra and grumbling about how stupid and thoughtless Americans are to let these freedoms be eroded by the "Corporate Republic".

AOL.com, News.com, and MSN.com -- and all the rest (including Slashdot) are just barking dogs chasing their wheels?

There's also the online version of most major papers; I go to The New York Times a lot more frequently than I do any of the ones you've mentioned, and they tend to have more credibility (with me at least). There's also syndicates like the Associated Press and Reuters which allow just about anyone to compete with the bigger news sites, at least on some level.

In 1998, the government prohibited the playing of computer games in wangbas [Internet Cafe], a restriction that has been sporadically enforced. (Wangbas were still permitted to provide Internet access, just not for gameplaying.)

In 1999, the government repeated the restriction as part of a collection of regulations that also prohibited wangba customers from engaging in activities endangering national security and disrupting public security and order.

Editorials published in The People's Daily depict wangbas, game parlors and computer games as a "plague" and a "poison." Newspapers and television broadcasts regularly report on students addicted to computer games who do not return home for days, steal money from their parents and give themselves to the wangbas in indentured servitude to pay their bills.

You can view NYTIMES articles by changing www to www10, changing it to partners no longer works.


http://www10.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/bizt ech/articles/17lab.html

http://www1 0.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/ 17lab.html

No login link Link here

Anybody interested in seriously bashing SUV drivers ought to check out this article on the Times. Auto companies have put a lot of cash into figuring out why people drive SUV's, with some interesting results. . .

"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"

June 30, 2000: MP3 Summit Ian at MP3 Summit webcast
You can find Ian's hour long talk at the MP3 Summit about 1 hour 8 minutes into the Wednesday webcast.

June 16, 2000: Guardian Free market fight for music moguls
Interesting article in a British national newspaper.

May 27, 2000: LA Weekly Genie 1, Bottle 0
Very amusing article on Freenet and copyright. Highly recommended.

May 24, 2000: Channel 4 News Hackers stay one step ahead
A very cool news item talking about recent attempts by the British government to censor the Internet and how Freenet will make this very difficult. Includes text and streaming video of the item.

May 23, 2000: Libération L'anarchie est au bout du clavier
An interesting French article about Freenet, concentrating on the freedom of information aspects of the system rather than just copyright.

May 12, 2000: National Post Napster secured page in Internet history
Interesting description of why Freenet is not vulnerable in the same way that Napster is, although I must say that their "final thought" is slightly perplexing!

May 12, 2000: O'Reilly Network Gnutella and Freenet represent true technological innovation
A nice article concentrating, for a change, on the technical side of Freenet and Gnutella. Reasonably accurate, although it understates the efficiency improvement that Freenet should provide (describing it as of comparable efficiency to the WWW where it should be much more efficient).

May 12, 2000: Het Nieuwsblad Vrijheid van downloaden
A Belgian article about Freenet.

May 10, 2000: Houston Chronicle Software developer pledges to foil all intellectual property watchdogs
A version of the article below, doesn't require that you register.

May 10, 2000: New York Times The Concept of Copyright Fights for Internet Survival
One of the better articles; concentrates on the copyright issue. Requires free registration.

April 27, 2000: PCFormat Daily FreeNet
A brief article on Freenet.

April 27, 2000: Heise News-Ticker World Wide Anarchy: Netz ohne Kontrolle
A German article on Freenet.

April 26, 2000: CNET.com Free, anonymous information on the anarchists' Net
Entertaining article with some nice quotes.

April 17, 2000: The Irish Times Anarchy Rules Alternative Web
A rather amusing article on Freenet.

April 16, 2000: Freshmeat Client As Server: The New Model
An interesting article discussing distributed systems and how systems like Freenet are actually in a similar spirit to the original Internet.

April 13, 2000: El País Freenet propone una red sin censuras, alternativa a la WWW
A Spanish article about Freenet.

April 10, 2000: Slashdot.org FreeNet's Ian Clarke Answers Privacy Questions
A very informative interview conducted by the readership of SlashDot.org, probably the closest thing to a FAQ, aside from our faq.

March 25, 2000: ABC News Freedom on the Net?
A rehash of the New Scientist article below, but likely to reach a much larger audience.

March 25, 2000: New Scientist Out of control
A "big bad Internet"-style article, but it is reasonably well researched and seeks the opinions of those who might be considered Freenet's opposition.

March 23, 2000: Heise.de Ein Netzwerk, das Zensur unmöglich machen soll
A German article on Freenet.

March 14, 2000: OLinux Freenet, a polemic concept to deal with WWW
An English translation of a Brazilian interview with Ian Clarke. Focuses on the technical aspects of Freenet, and goes into a reasonable amount of detail as to how the system works.

March 10, 2000: Webwereld Anoniem Freenet ultieme schuilplaats voor piraten
A Dutch article on Freenet. My Dutch is a little rusty but it looks like it is primarily inspired by the Wired article below.

March 8, 2000: no spoon FreeNet : le réseau anonyme distribué qui supplantera le Web
An excellent French article on Freenet, draws an interesting parallel between Freenet and the writings of Neal Stephenson.

March 3, 2000: Need To Know sufficiently advanced technology: the gathering
A brief but excellent article again approaching Freenet from a pro-freedom standpoint.

February 24, 2000: PigDog Journal Get in on the Ground Floor of Freedom
A very positive little article describing Freenet and why they think it is interesting using some rather "colorful" language.

August 14, 1999: Brave Gnu World FreeNET
One of the first articles about Freenet back when it was 100% theory. Still an excellent introduction to the way Freenet works.

2. get the headlines, except when well organized, and even then not always

So we're not invited, because - one person, one vote notwithstanding - Congress has decided that we don't count.

Protest method: get a copy of Orrin Hatch's country tunes, put it on Napster, get all your friends to do the same!

sulli

The senator seems impressed with Metallica's music after downloading it off the net.

There isn't anything in that article that says he downloaded the music off the net.