Slashdot Mirror

• Only two of those three Byrd killers will receive the death penalty. But worse, many legal analysts think Bush's callous statement about putting the killers to death will actually help them on appeal, because as the chief law enforcement officer Bush showed serious bias in public.
• Bush's statements on global warming shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue... or else he's in the pocket of the oil industry. Hmmmm... I wonder which one it is... naaaa, he's too stupid to actually understand.
• Re: the hate crimes legislation which died in committe... well, turns out he enacted a hate crimes law which excludes gays and didn't want to admit as such. DUHHHHH...
• And what about his "we'll enforce the gun laws" tripe? Uh huh, Gore plans on enacting federal licensing? Who's the "exaggerator"????

Wholly absent from the debate seems to be a coherent vision of what the future should be, how corporations can survive in the digital age and still make money from their efforts. Maybe we don't think they SHOULD be allowed to make money, or only a certain amount but we should at least come out and say that.

ok i will come out and say it.
im of the opinion that money that gains intrest , does not function to serve you. it's function to make more money for those that have more money.

for an example read salon's Microsoft's funny money.
really think about it, the comman man is not served by this rackect that these non-persons called corporations, call working for a living. what kind of live is it when you dont own your time?

nmarshall

The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..

Is the SDMI boycott backfiring? Programmers don't want to help the recording industry test its new security "solution." But the technology insiders behind the system say hackers could kill it once and for all by participating.

Of course we will break the code - any new code is inevitably broken, especially one tied to hardware like SDMI. Many have talked about the prospects for breaking the code, and most agree - it will be possible in most forms, due to fundamental flaws in the architecture.

Don't worry about breaking any potential codes - it will happen regardless. Look at the massive support for Napster and you can see why SDMI won't work. On the other hand, look at the RIAA's coalition now: fractured, broken. Will they EVER be able to repair it? I hope not.

However this article points out a lot of things that seem to be coming true and mentioned in the article that is the focus of this slashdot item, that basically the music company executives didn't expect it to be broken, don't have anything to fall back on, and the SDMI may in fact fall apart now that two years of their work have been effortlessly cut into shreds! Which is EXCELLENT news!

I really wish that the article quoted above had been written earlier and had come to our attention earlier, for it is quite a valid and compelling counter to the "rah rah let's boycott the challenge" idea.

Basically, maybe we were all wrong, and cracking it quickly and effortlessly will not help the SDMI, but actually destroy it! Go crackers!

Hey, you can read all about this issue over at Salon.com:

Microsoft's funny money

A spunky shareholder resolution
demands that the company account
for its political campaign
contributions.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Janelle Brown

Oct. 10, 2000 | It's hardly a secret
that Microsoft is the fifth-biggest
contributor of "soft money" to politicians
-- funneling hundreds of thousands of
dollars into the "non-federal accounts" of
political parties and lobbyists, thereby
bypassing campaign contribution limits.
According to Opensecrets.org, in 1999 and
2000 Microsoft handed over $1,732,575 to
various Democratic and Republican committees
-- a number topped only by AT&T and three
union organizations.

--

I agree with your opinions. (You might be thinking of the wrong salon -- www.beautynet.com versus www.salon.com -- but your opinions still apply. They are both trash.) But I have a problem with one statement:

"I steal files all the time."

I highly fuckin' doubt it. How do you steal a computer file ? Copy it, and then delete it from the other guy's computer ? Don't you mean that you just copy it and don't pay anything, with consent of person from whom you are copying it?

Because copying a file off the net without paying for it isn't stealing anything. Not only is it not stealing, it is not even against the law.

Some powerful people, who don't have your interests at heart, would love to have everyone think copying a copyrighted file was illegal. Don't help them spread their lies.

The students at Tienneman Square: While these students were not protected by free speech, their message (at least to Westerners) was basically moral, while the risk was very great. One of the greatest images is the student standing in front of the tank, who was probably killed for his act of protest.

Martin Luther King, Ghandi: While their speech was, to a certain extent, protected by the government, they broke unjust laws, and were arrested, as part of their basically moral message. While not by the government, both were executed for their stances.

Larry Flynt: The guy's probably been in court more than King or Ghandi - although many disagree with what he's selling, he has fought for it, defended it, at great personal risk.

Winston Churchill: His message may have not been that moral, but if all flamers were as witty - also, when someone was insulted, they knew exactly who did it, and could respond in kind.

The Press: They definitely take some legal risk when they run a story on a private or public citizen. However, they are not on the same legal footing as the people they attack, so I have to say they are a bit low on the risk scale. For an example, see Salon on the Washington Post's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case.

Most Internet posts: People may think the world revolves on their discussions, but in reality, little changes. Little risk to the debaters, except to their online personas. With the weird, backwards laws, the host of the discussion takes more risk than the participants.

Anonymous Threats: May have something to say, but take no risk themselves, and don't try to attack on an equal footing with the victim.

Obviously, this is not a complete list, but gives us a way to compare flammers in response to, say, this article:

Jon Katz: A fair amount of risk, especially given his history as a flame target. And, I'm guessing, he's using his real name.

Respondents with real info: These people respond (flames or otherwise), with their real names and contact info, and take on a bit of risk, but not as much as the headliner.

Respondents without real info: They respond, but not even with a real email address. They take little risk to their online persona.

Anonymous Cowards: Zero risk, even to their online persona.

IMHO, flaming is OK if the flamer takes as much risk as the flamee, and that the two are on equal footing.

I recommend not making random death threats; they might be taken seriously:
Aug. 31, 2000 | No one ever expected Sean Dix -- the gently gruff, hardworking New York kid turned quirky inventor -- to wind up in jail this summer, especially not for sending a death threat to one of the world's most powerful men.

-----
D. Fischer

Anyway, slamming is the practice of switching a persons ld service without their knowledge.

As for Al Gore inventing the Internet, he never said that. See this Salon article&l t;/a> for a good run down of what he did say and how he has a decent claim of being instrumental in creating the Internet (or ARPAnet as it was called at the time.)

What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work.

Courtney Love said the exact same thing -- about the recourd companies.

More coverage of this issue is found in the Salon article, "Designer babies?"

FYI, there's a story at Salon about it here. I submitted it the slashdot bosses, but of course they rejected it, as it didn't have the word "Linux" in it.
--

Hey, I've been doing my part all evening to spam investment boards about the upcoming Digital Convergence IPO. The more the merrier, though! Bust in! Here's a sample:

Digital Convergence (DGTL) recently filed plans for an IPO. This company gives out free barcode scanners (called "CutCat") and accompanying software. The idea is that you can scan things and their software will pull up an appropriate web page in your browser. On the side, they can collect demographic data. For example, they could determine which gender and age group most often scans a certain type of product.

I think this is a horrible company, a must avoid stock for the following reasons:

• DGTL gives away CueCat barcode scanners and software, hoping to get money from advertisers and publications. The problem is that their software is inessential: it took folks a matter of hours to write substitute software that reads a barcode without contacting DGTL. So at the key step where they're supposed to cash in, they're completely cut out of the loop! Whoops!
• Apparently realizing the enormity of their error, DC has been sending vague, threatening letters to people already distributing alternate software. Unfortunately, these letters appear to be legal bluffs. Decoding software is available on dozens of sites and appears to have no real legal strings attached.
• A clearly disconcerted president of the technology group at DGTL fired off a letter showing gross misunderstanding of intellectual property law-- upon which the health of the company critically depends. (Or would depend, were the IP law favorable to their cause-- which it isn't.)
• These threatening letters have incensed the open source community-- a group well-qualified to undermine DC's business model by providing alternate software to drive the CueCat, shutting of DC's revenue.
• The product raises privacy concerns. You register with DGTL and then every time you scan something, they know it. Apparently DGTL has given assurances about privacy. Then again, they left their entire customer database unguarded for hackers to take. Read their own toned down account. (DGTL has also touted the scanner's "built in encryption", which turned out to consist of XORing each byte with the letter 'C'. I fear these some of the stupidest people ever put on God's Good Earth.)
• A key asset that DGTL hopes to develop through the barcode scans is a database of demographic data. There's a problem, however: Digital Convergence has a lot of enemies now. It would be a simple matter for ONE PERSON write a little program that sends fake scans with fake user IDs to DGTLs servers. This could permanently corrupt the demographic database, making it worthless, because-- quite possibly-- there could be no way to distinguish real scans from fakes after the fact.
• Just as the company's fundamental business model has fallen under shadow, they file for an IPO. Avoid, avoid, avoid.

These are just my opinions, of course. I did my best to get the facts straight, but I'm not perfect. Additional comments on this corporate disaster slouching toward NASDAQ are available at:

• Salon : ...there are a million problems with this concept.
• Linux World: In the end, the :CueCat is a classic example of a broken business model.
• Dr. Dobbs Journal: What ought to scare Digital Convergence more [...] is a database of all CueCat barcodes/URLs, whereby users could go to a specific web page without being tracked.
• Dallas Observer: ...you can simply drag the scanner 600 or 700 times over bar codes printed next to stories and ads, and presto, you get an error message.
• Internet News Radio:The CueCat is starting to look like a mangy stray.

Wait a minute here... if Napster gets in bed with the RIAA for a subscription service, I will not join. If Napster were offering WAV's of complete tracks, and EVERY song is available from an album (ie no songs present from an album unless all are - keeping you from just being offered 'some stuff' or the 'commercials' for the rest of the physical CD) then I might think about paying $3-5 per year . MP3's are lossy, the recording just isnt as good as a CD, it is painfully obvious on decent stereo equipment, but MP3 (ogg vorbis) is mostly acceptable. I can dload WAV's and burn CD's for archive and encode/burn MP3's at will for 'time shift' or 'media shift'. (IANALthankfuckinggod). If the RIAA thinks they are going to use their collusive oligopoly to maintain artificial control on the music industry they are wrong.

The RIAA enslaves artists and their patrons. Has everyone read the Courtney Love article at salon? If you or everyone you know hasnt read this article, please do.

The RIAA were necessary in a time where reproduction and distribution costs/logistics were sufficiently high enough to allow them to 'add value'.The RIAA is a dinosaur. Technology has made their 'value' == 0. Let them die, they've already made enough money... the corporatist pigs. The anti-IP MP3 'warriors' have the RIAA on the ropes. They are winning this battle. If not legally, they are effectively. Let the RIAA buy more US legislation, let them stop selling CD's in place of 'SDMI CDs', let them demand everyone buys a new CD player... when the sheeple wake up and say "no way, I want my music from artists, you no longer have business here"

Before all the flamethrowers fire up, rememeber to read Courtney Love's article.. the present system exploits ARTISTS more than its customers.
Stop buying anything from RIAA/MPAA members, they are trying to enslave modern culture... and thats a Bad Thing(TM)

EAX is not like A3D. EAX is reverb. A3D was a proprietary API and hardware for 3D positional audio. In computer games. Implemented on sound cards. It makes me feel like a rebel to cheer for the underdog, too, but I think we should be fighting for open standards, not just turnover among proprietary corporate initiatives. PS: I could have sworn we were talking about MP3 players anyway. Chris Owens
San Carlos, CA

Why is Red Herring running the identical article as salon.com (here). I wasn't aware that these companies had a relationship.

Okay, this was origionally published in Salon right here.Now, noting this, I think we can stop thinking about the biad being toward the management types who read Red Herring. (not to say Salon doesn't have it's own biases...)
--

Okay, this was origionally published in Salon right here.Now, noting this, I think we can stop thinking about the biad being toward the management types who read Red Herring. (not to say Salon doesn't have it's own biases...)
--

In this This Modern World strip, Sparky speaks out about settling for the lesser of two evils.

I love efforts like this. My ambition is to build a TiVo-like unit one day, except with some of the features that TiVo isn't ever going to have (at least, that's what TiVo CEO Mike Ramsay says in this article on Salon.com), like commercial-skip. A good compression scheme will be an important part of the job.

Rehnquist apparently doesn't think there is a legal problem nor an appearance one by a "reasonable" person. I disagree (and I'm pretty neutral about Micro$oft)
---

• RealChange on NAder.
  
• Boston.com talks about campaign finance and mentions Ralph.
  
• And you can search at Salon, lots of Nader articles.
  

Let's follow the trail:

1. President comes into office.
2. President appoints cabinet, including Attorney General.
3. President tells Attorney General to do x, y, and z.
4. Attorney General does x, y and z, as well as u and v for personal agenda.

And the Microsoft Monopoly Trial may very well be defined as 'x'. That's why Gates wants to see the election. If he gets Bush the Corporate Muppet, the possibility of the penalties being carried out is probably as good as dead.
----

This is just the case of the distributors scrambling to hold on to a dying market. The problem at hand is not whether or not they will survive (which they won't), but how many laws will be created and destroyed during the course of their demise.

Do we really want it made illegal to listen to music on anything but a pair of RIAA-sanctioned sub-cochlea vibro speakers?

Or forcing all music to be automatically placed under the licensing restraints of the more popular RIAA contracts?

And if you're worried about the musicians, I think this states it all.

-Medgur

Who owns the rights to "Happy Birthday?"

read this. It explains things pretty well.

Salon ran an unflattering review on our beloved CueCat - stopping just short of using terms like "hare-brained" or "cockamamie". It does touch on privacy issues, but mostly it just blasts it for being such a dumb concept and not even functioning correctly.

1. It's a dumb idea to scan barcodes just to go to a web page.

2. The thing is really really hard to get to install.

3. It doesn't even work right when installed.

Yep, mine is still in the box and staying there.

As Courtney Love points out in detail, artists aren't eating under the current system. Artists may well do better giving away MP3s and asking for tips and making money from concert tours than under the current system. As she says:

Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

In never made any sense to me why aol would even bother with winamp, until I read this from an older article on Salon .

Our platform talks to players that are written by partner companies like RealNetworks through Universal Music Group and now Winamp through America Online, which serves up music to consumers.

All of this SDMI is useless is no software mp3 players support it. So AOL (now AOL/Time Warner) owns the most popular method chosen to listen to mp3's so they can put in whatever they want. If the music industry (Universal Music Group, and TW) didn't have control of the software this SDMI would be useless.

But don't they see that anyone can write an MP3 Player???

... it isn't likely to come out until the glass dissolves.

Actually, if you read the Salon article, you will find the following:

'"The fine particles of glass laced with lead eventually degrade. With rainfall getting into the dump site, the water will become contaminated with lead, and that lead-filled water will leach out of the landfill and into the groundwater." It's a process that may take several decades, but it will happen: It's as ineluctable as the flaking of paint.'

Radio-active waste is not just dissolved into glass, it is also buried where (in theory) it cannot be leached into the environment.

I wish people would worry about real pollution problems, such as the poisons in circuit componets and motherboards

I agree.

She's not against mp3s at all. read Salon's article if you don't believe that. Her suit is most like a counter suit to Universal. Her Salon article discusses the evils of the recording industry and how she doesn't want the industry making money by citing her work as what is infringed upon with regard to mp3.com. She wants to be able to decide the fate of her music. It appears that she doesn't want the industry to try to crush the non-RIAA distributers, since she wants the current establishment will go the way of the dinosaur and not make money. The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend is what this suit looks like it is about...

I don't really like her music especially, but I liked her argument. It makes sense. Especially her views on the suckage of "Mambo Number 5"...<grin>

Do the record companies own the copyright to any works they produce automatically?

I was under the impression that artists own the copyright (and therefore have the right to control distribution) originally, and that in most cases they sign over this right to the record companies in their exclusive contracts.

If that's the case, maybe artisits should not sign these contracts!

Things like Napster could shut down BMI and Sony and Universal and Time Warner forever, because Napster cuts them out of the artist/fan loop altogether. So they use their jointly-owned non-profit front organization, the RIAA, to file a lawsuit "on behalf of artists", to shut down Napster and Gnutella because they can be used to violate copyright, kind of like how Reynolds knives can be used to stab people.

If any other industry tried this sort of collusion, their executives would be locked away on racketeering charges and spend about a decade per count turning big rocks into little rocks. But the music industry has a lobby that would make the gun industry cream its pants, and so you get things like the Copyright Act of 1978.

Take a look at Salon's remarkable article Courtney Love does the math for further insight into what a record company contract is really like, and how there's no way around them if you want to be rewarded for your work.

--

Do the record companies own the copyright to any works they produce automatically?

I was under the impression that artists own the copyright (and therefore have the right to control distribution) originally, and that in most cases they sign over this right to the record companies in their exclusive contracts.

If that's the case, maybe artisits should not sign these contracts!

Things like Napster could shut down BMI and Sony and Universal and Time Warner forever, because Napster cuts them out of the artist/fan loop altogether. So they use their jointly-owned non-profit front organization, the RIAA, to file a lawsuit "on behalf of artists", to shut down Napster and Gnutella because they can be used to violate copyright, kind of like how Reynolds knives can be used to stab people.

If any other industry tried this sort of collusion, their executives would be locked away on racketeering charges and spend about a decade per count turning big rocks into little rocks. But the music industry has a lobby that would make the gun industry cream its pants, and so you get things like the Copyright Act of 1978.

Take a look at Salon's remarkable article Courtney Love does the math for further insight into what a record company contract is really like, and how there's no way around them if you want to be rewarded for your work.

--

That all depends on the details of her contract. While most artists today have contracts that classify their music as "works for hire" owned by the label, this is not true of everyone.

Under current law, even if the record company owns your music, the artist can still regain the rights to their music after 35 years

When the RIAA tried to sneak in an amendment to the Copyright Act last year that would have automatically classified all music as "works for hire" and eliminated the 35 year loophole, it got a lot of people pissed off - you can read all about it in this recent article from Salon

As several others have pointed out, Courtney Love has a hair up her ass in the form of record labels. See Salon's article for a speech she made about how the labels fsck the artists. She's protesting the "we're defending the artists" crap the labels use.

This artcile at Salon gives a good explanation of how it works.

Nope. It has everything to do with her ability to speak about the issues. Perhaps you missed her "speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16"

ta-da:
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

She's got a big mouth, and she seems to not have her head that far up her ass. Salon has a great speech of hers here that everyone should read. I'll love watching Universal deal with her.

Yeah, right. I worked in the print media, too. And I've watched technology publications whore themselves out to the highest bidder. The company I work for was approached in the last few months by a supposedly reputable tech rag; the salesweasel flat out told the General Manager than editorial column inches on us were entirely dependant on buying an ad - the bigger the ad, the more column inches.

The seperation is generally considered cleaner in more mainstream publications, but there are well-known examples of so-called respectable publishers selling themselves to the highest bidder.

Our friendly neighbors over at Salon have This similar article up in which they even go as far as taking a light hearted jab at slashdot not having anything about the topic matter up by they time of their posting. They also mention something about being opinionated, but thats just their opinion I'm sure.

Our friendly neighbors over at Salon have This similar article up in which they even go as far as taking a light hearted jab at slashdot not having anything about the topic matter up by they time of their posting. They also mention something about being opinionated, but thats just their opinion I'm sure.

Salon's article on this clearly implies this is a big ol' PR stunt.

And what did SDMI think of [Don Marti's] response? Salon's calls to SDMI's press office went unreturned. But Marti says that he also e-mailed his open letter to the webmaster of HackSDMI.org -- and guess what? It bounced.

What the cracking community needs to do is to be very vocal on it's non-participation in this 'event' instead of silently ignoring it. Anyone up for DoNotHackSDMI.org?

Never mind that Nader has made money off of those corporations he hates so much
DigitalContent PAC

Here is the Salon interview with David Touretzky, the creator of the online DeCSS gallery. It's quite interesting. Here's a great Q&A: Has the MPAA threatened to sue you?
No. They haven't contacted me. My gallery is still in place; in fact I've received a bunch of new contributed exhibits recently. I consider the gallery to be an academic publication; it's listed on my curriculum vitae. If the MPAA wants to start censoring academic works, they know where to find me.
-----
D. Fischer

I thought that everybody would be interested in this little news blurb:

> Valenti has founded a new department
> within the Motion Picture Association
> called Digital Strategies "to involve
> ourselves in digital rights management
> procedures so we can clothe our
> movies in a protective shield that
> would disallow them to be copied by
> anybody.

This is the kicker:

> Sniffers will instantly pluck out
> anything out there that's unauthorized."

Circumventing encryption technology is now against federal copyright law. Trafficking in DeCSS would fall under federal commerce laws since it is a form of insterstate trade. But hey, don't let me tell you that - listen to the goat's mouth (from this link at the end of the Salon Article);

We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago, in which every single enterprise in this country to which copyright protection is vital -- professional baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, NCAA, broadcasters, television stations, cable systems, music songwriters, movies, television programs -- they've all banded together to and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield , the nation's economy is the loser. (italics mine).

So I think that it would be reasonable to say that what he means by "protective shield" is not Star Wars or safe sex.

No, this singular honor belongs to Carnivore.

Don't look to retailers for a definitive answer. In an informal survey of independent music chain operators, who, together, own nearly 50 stores that cater to mostly college-aged crowds, owners appear to be split over the crucial cause-and-effect question. (Salon, August 8, 2000)

The Recipricol study didn't take into account the number of cd's students are purchasing online. And even in this 'perfect' scenario:

According to Singmaster, his Clemson outlet (which caters almost exclusively to college students) is experiencing its second consecutive year of declining sales. "That's the first timein 15 years that that's happened to one of my stores, and we've weathered a few price wars." Singmaster initially blamed his staff; now he blames Napster. "Considering my other stores continue to grow, you have to start to look at other factors," he says. "Napster seems to be the culprit, which is why I tend to believe the RIAA study."(Salon, Aug 8, 2000)

the case study didn't look at whether or not students were buying their cd's online. And in fact since his store's decline began two years ago, when Napster was just rolling out, it would be doubtful Napster could be the sole cause of it. A more judicious study would have examined bandwidth useage in comparison to lost sales.

As one record store owner said, "Sales are actually up because Napster has brought music to the forefront. Everybody's talking about music."

Our economic system is based on the ability of people to be compensated for their work.

Then why aren't recording artists being compensated?

In the case of the music industry, we protect the artist's copyright so that they can be compensated for their work.

But the labels generally don't compensate the artists enough to make a living.

We buy the CD's, the record companies skim off the bulk of the money and pay some remaining portion to the artist.

According to Courtney Love, our "remaining portion" isn't even enough to buy promotion for the record, let alone pay the bills.

Respectfully I would argue that the child pornography issue is a perfect example of censorship derived from political ideology. The argument against child pornography is that it promotes child abuse, so the elimation of it would lower child abuse. After all, politically speaking, who could be against protecting the children.

It is fairly well known that a vast majority of child abuse is committed by family members and people known by the family, not by some wierdo who likes child pornography. However, by using this anti-child-porno stance political ideology can be promoted by the "Big Brother" tactics required to combat it. And all the while the real group of offenders escape the scrutiny of the masses.

An excellent article on exactly this topic was on Salon recently, link here.
psyfir

Because I am a stickler for citation, I appreciate your questioning of this element. Here is a link to the news story I mentioned.

Unions don't have to be corrupt, they are simply a way for people to group together for a common goal. There are good unions and bad unions, a union is just a political organization designed to serve a group of workers.

The leader's of the industries, in groups like the BSA, RIAA, MPAA certainly have no problem banding together for common goals, why should the worker's feel they are better served by not organizing?

In the American system, people are more powerful when they are organized into lobbies and special interest groups, and I've yet to see a way to change it. Even campaign finance reform can't alter these groups ability to influence the votes of their members. (I'm a political realist, campaign finance reform is probably not going to happen, anyway.)

A union is like a political party, whether it is good or bad depends on what kind of leaders are voted in. The right to have a union, like the right to be part of a political party, is a good thing. In fact, it is part of our constitutional freedom of assembly.

When the recording artists got the "work for hire" clause that the RIAA foisted on them repealed, they did it by unionizing, even if they didn't call it that. How will tech workers affect things like DMCA without organizing?