Slashdot Mirror

"I can hardly wait until "I got locked in my car" becomes a standard excuse for why you're late for a meeting"

How about, I was so preocupied watching the GPS screen that I drove off a cliff.

Consumer preference data is not very suitable for intelligence use, particularly as the primary source of information used for screening.

According to TechDirt, the concessions might be just smoke and mirrors, at least in part. They've carved out exceptions to their agreement to keep network neutrality ("This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service") and possibly some limitations on how useful the "affordable stand-alone digital subscriber line service" is.

compared to legal video sales. The largest target continues to be adult oriented content and TV shows,

Pirated TV shows, eh? Anyone surprised? It's the content provider's fault, and its their problem. No sympathy here. The reason it's pirated so much is that there's no viable alternative. VERY few shows, except a few tokens available on iTunes (The Office, etc), can't be bought legally until the season finishes and the DVD comes out. If it comes out. Months later.
So let's say the DVDs come out. Most shows are $40 a season!! The few episodes available for download cost a whopping $1.99. So however I buy it, chances are, I'm looking at $2 per episode, for something I'm probably only going to watch once. What a ripoff! I mean, I really like Lost, but once you find out what happens in the end, there really isn't much value in rewatching it (IMO). Therefore, it's not quite comparable in value to me purchasing one of my favorite movies on DVD that I'll likely watch over and over again. Sure I could rent it, but that's kind of a pain in the ass. And that doesn't even address technical issues.
I buy my favorite music online, I can buy it in a format that doesn't suck. With mp3, it Plays for Sure (tm) on my iPod, or God forbid off-brand mp3 player. Let's say I decide to buck up for a DVD of one of my favorite TV Shows. Now I have to deal with DVD player region crap. Can I just put it on my PSP/iPod Video, etc? Apparently not. That seems to be illegal under the DMCA. Well, maybe if I pay extra money for it at the time of purchase. Sounds like a crappy deal to me.

So let's recap. I'm a (relatively) honest consumer looking to watch my favorite show because I missed it on TV. It's overpriced, I have to wait as long as months to get it, it's overpriced, I'm probably only going to watch it once, it's overpriced, it comes in a crappy format, and I can't copy it (legally), and I can't put it on my mobile device. Piracy to the rescue! Any questions?

Searchers are too busy searching to notice in-search ads.

The link in the article points to Techdirt : http://techdirt.com/articles/20061219/092747.shtml ... which links to another of it's own articles : http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/622 8 ... which finally links to the actual article on PhoneScoop : http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1502

Is someone from Techdirt trying to increase their hitcounter?

The link in the article points to Techdirt : http://techdirt.com/articles/20061219/092747.shtml ... which links to another of it's own articles : http://news.techdirt.com/news/wireless/article/622 8 ... which finally links to the actual article on PhoneScoop : http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1502

Is someone from Techdirt trying to increase their hitcounter?

Google is a company...Their responsibility is more towards their shareholders, not so much towards their users.

I'm pretty fed up with this prevailing Slashdot view of all public companies, just as I'm increasingly finished dealing with/investing in any company, public or private, that would prefer bow to their investors rather than service their customers, past present and future. Techdirt had a pretty solid analysis yesterday about craigslist and the whole myth of maximizing [short term] profit. What I'd like to know is when these Wall Street analysts lost sight of that ol' outdated capitalist notion that what's good for your customers is ultimately going to be goddamn good for you?!

But Google's actually a little different -- they took an end-around from some of the Wall Street pressure by withholding voting rights from their share sales. Investors know this (or should) going in, and the crippled voting writes are factored into the shareprice accordingly. This doesn't mean Google won't be evil, just that withdrawing their SOAP API probably had dickall to do with maximizing revenues or protecting brand value. Have you tried to code to a SOAP service? Without a tool it's a practical impossiblitiy. I'll wager there's a ReSTful interface already in the works. I'm surprised they went SOAP in the first place -- it really isn't Google style.

OK, so I looked at the article which was about a paragraph and linked me to another article which was about four lines long and linked me to another article, again about a paragraph long, linking to a "full story which gives a 404 error.

Of course, this being slashdot, I know better than to be suprised by this.

The chinese article is only three links deep and is actually online. It says "Under the new standard, all mobile phones, regardless of the brand, will be able to share one charger with a USB access, allowing users to charge handsets through laptops." - so it's still pretty ambiguous.

Also, though the Chinese effort seems to be government-mandated, the South Korean program is being requested by carriers, with no government involvement.

OK, so I looked at the article which was about a paragraph and linked me to another article which was about four lines long and linked me to another article, again about a paragraph long, linking to a "full story which gives a 404 error.

Of course, this being slashdot, I know better than to be suprised by this.

The chinese article is only three links deep and is actually online. It says "Under the new standard, all mobile phones, regardless of the brand, will be able to share one charger with a USB access, allowing users to charge handsets through laptops." - so it's still pretty ambiguous.

Also, though the Chinese effort seems to be government-mandated, the South Korean program is being requested by carriers, with no government involvement.

OK, so I looked at the article which was about a paragraph and linked me to another article which was about four lines long and linked me to another article, again about a paragraph long, linking to a "full story which gives a 404 error.

Of course, this being slashdot, I know better than to be suprised by this.

The chinese article is only three links deep and is actually online. It says "Under the new standard, all mobile phones, regardless of the brand, will be able to share one charger with a USB access, allowing users to charge handsets through laptops." - so it's still pretty ambiguous.

Also, though the Chinese effort seems to be government-mandated, the South Korean program is being requested by carriers, with no government involvement.

12/08/06: Warner CEO slaps own child on wrist
11/28/06: Pressure on AllofMp3
11/22/06: Pressure on the RIAA

Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.'

One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same precedent applied, 20 years or so from now, to the US trying to get some economic favor from China...

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061116/193052.shtml

Can it get any worse?

can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?

That's right. I also believe that it's pretty easy to get a domain name cancelled.

Who would pay the big bucks to get his super-phishing domain cancelled?

Seems like one more groundless scare from F-Secure. A company that has been known to cry wolf regularly (especially when it create a market for their products)

That's right. I also believe that it's pretty easy to get a domain name cancelled.

Who would pay the big bucks to get his super-phishing domain cancelled?

Seems like one more groundless scare from F-Secure. A company that has been known to cry wolf regularly (especially when it create a market for their products)

I want people trying to influence this election unfairly to be Americans

Don't worry, my friend! Whether you're interested in hacked voting machines or hackable paper ballot scanners, the company that promised to deliver the 2004 election to Bush will see you through the next Republican landslide election!

If we allow folks to sell advertising against our FULL content then we will lose 90% of our revenue. People will republish Engadget and Autoblog, call it an RSS reader, and sell ads against it - Jason Calacanis of Weblogs via Techdirt

Dude, what you describe sounds eerily exactly what the ePlus v. SAP patent infringement case is all about....damn!

see http://techdirt.com/articles/20050908/1059235_F.sh tml

Dude, what you describe sounds eerily exactly what the ePlus v. SAP patent infringement case is all about....damn!

see http://techdirt.com/articles/20050908/1059235_F.sh tml

Sounds like someone at 20th Century Fox has been listening to George Lucas. $200 million dollar movies just don't make sense these days. There was an interesting writeup about a related topic on Techdirt this morning too, here. Wil Wheaton also had some interesting comments about Lucas' comments on his blog awhile back here.

The reality is, there are many more distribution models than there used to be, meaning that you don't have to take a chance with a huge budget picture to get a hit/return on investment. In fact, if you have a really good product, your fans may very well prefer that you not make a big budget blockbuster movie and instead release a series of smaller, less expensive "films" distributed through an alternative medium, because they can get more content.

Now whether that was Fox/Universal's thinking on this, or if they just got cold feet due to the dollar signs, either way it is pretty strong evidence that we are standing on the cusp of a potentially huge paradigm shift in the way that movies are made and distributed. I suspect that all it would take is one big name hit to be released in this fashion to get the snowball really rolling.

Already being done. They plan to follow the cellphone model. give away the pc and charge for usage

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060522/0954242. shtml

Though, why not? I'm not saying to purchase the system exclusively for this functionality, that would be a waste of money, though I must say that this feature is the first for the system that is pushing me towards wanting one. I try to run @home utils on my PC any time I can. Unfortunately, with the world today you can no longer run them at work. Note: I'm aware SETI@home is different than FAH, but the concept that was scrutinized is identical. This leaves home computers to run the programs. My poor 1.7gHz computer can barely push out a unit a week, and though I'm sure every little bit helps, I'm excited that the PS3 kiddies will be contributing to a constructive cause whether they want to or not.

DRM-free e-music has now got the second-biggest market share for download stores

• the term 'tivoisation' is of course ...about the tivo. Companies doing an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo doesn't play nice.
• Tivo includes DRM. That's reason on it's own...
• ...but the DRM will be misused; even if by 'mistake'.
• ...and the DRM is forced on you in mandatory software updates
• The mandatory updates change the product after you buy it. How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me. Like anyone would accept their 300hp car suddenly being downgraded to a 150hp car because GM was pressured by another industry....say the insurance industry.
• And of course anything else that they might want to do with their hardware (it's clearly not yours!).

On my to-do list is to build a myth box.
And I'm going to build it with open-source, because I'm going to install it on hardware that I own and therefore should control.

... I think you missed the last poster's point. He or she is referring to cases where the Insurance Company believes that a Technology is /unbreakable/ in a /recent model car,/ and will not reimburse for theft.

Check this link, for example : http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060731/1323249. shtml

TFA just links the site, so here's the original story.

"There are plenty of reasonable ways to defend yourself against an RIAA lawsuit over file sharing. For example, you can show how your IP address is shared by many others and it's impossible for the RIAA to know who was actually responsible. However, one thing you should absolutely not do is erase your hard drive -- especially when there's a court order demanding you produce the hard drive as evidence. Yes, that's what one guy did, and the judge (not surprisingly) has sided with the RIAA and ruled in their favor."

TFA just links the site, so here's the original story.

"There are plenty of reasonable ways to defend yourself against an RIAA lawsuit over file sharing. For example, you can show how your IP address is shared by many others and it's impossible for the RIAA to know who was actually responsible. However, one thing you should absolutely not do is erase your hard drive -- especially when there's a court order demanding you produce the hard drive as evidence. Yes, that's what one guy did, and the judge (not surprisingly) has sided with the RIAA and ruled in their favor."

Copyright owners are finally starting to sue YouTube. Interestingly enough they are using the Grokster ruling, that "companies could be liable if they were found to induce the infringement in some manner."

Their terms of use say that users are responsible for any content posted. However, if I had a copyright on something posted I'd rather sue the company worth possibly billions than go through the hassle of hunting down a user.

I haven't really heard about too much of this, so they are probably doing a pretty good job of taking down offending clips, but when lawyers smell money in the water, look out.

http://muniwireless.com/community/1023
http://saveaccess.org/node/288
http://www.newnetworks.com/scandalquotes.htm
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488 /
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_ F.shtml

If a government agency that high up came to you and told you to do something that wouldn't really affect your company financially would you do it?

Techdirt had the best comment. Will this pass the "morons in a hurry test" that Apple Computer used against Apple Corp?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060814/023249.s html/

what option do they have except to sue everyone?

Oh, I dunno, how about properly investigate the defendant before filing suit?

If pirate kingpin's lawyer is not a moron, they will show cause to subpoena tons and tons of records of other 'pirates' that the RIAA have identified, and then ask pointedly why Jane Citizen wasn't sued.

Hm, could it be that Pirate Kingpin has cost the recording industry several orders of magnitude more in losses than Jane's casual downloading, and her P2P downoads might have even inspired her to buy more music?

I thought something was funny when I read about the suit being filed in East Texas.

According to techdirt, there's a federal judge in Marshall, Texas (a district in East Texas) who almost universally grants injunctions against patent infringers. Said judge is a favorite of patent trolls.

According to this pdf, the case is filed in...gasp...Marshall, TX.

Techdirt puts this article into nice perspective.

this comment on the page about the RIAA is a must read for those with a sense of humor. I would just copy the text, but that might be copyright infringment.

Paying software providers to bundle their BS? Arguably, the software maker is more at fault but Google's complicity is sufficient to lump them in with the other bad guys. No, I never did respect them. This is SOP not disillusionment.

Wrong, the government, and by the transitive property, the people, own the wires. The telcos didn't pay for them to go up. In fact, even when they were paid, by the government, to put them up, they didn't.

...when I made it on Techdirt this morning. Oh well, great minds think alike (so what's our excuse).

Companies peer traffic for free but they are paying to connect to the backbone fabric and all the costs associated with that - colo/rack space, ports [or whatever you want to call "internal connectivity at the NAP into the backbone"] fiber runs (to/from NAPs) are not free to google or yahoo or MSN. In fact if you want to do "free" peering at any MAE you still pay Verizon AFAIK http://www.mae.net/peer/index.htm and then use their tool to pick who you want to peer with.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20060324/1 829206&cid=354

So, again Yahoo and Google and MSN and eBay all pay for bandwidth/ports/access/rack space as do all the customers using FTTP/Cable/DSL/Dial Up - nobody is "not paying" the greedy telco's. I am sure that Equinix and MAE/Verizon are making pleny of money from all that "free" service they are providing to google and yahoo. https://ecc.equinix.com/peering/ExchangeTrafficHom e.jsp

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_ F.shtml

They all suck and laugh at us as we ask "Please sir can I have a tiny bit more bandwidth and can you unblock port 25/22/80/443/8080 and not QoS VoIP down into uselessness"

We already paid, they lie about that, they lie when they say google/MSN/eBay/Yahoo don't pay (what after you are a certain size company, you get free connectivity at all the NAPs? WTF are they talking about - everybody pays on both ends)

Neither the telco's nor the govt want citizens to have significant upload bandwidth -

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060526/1122205.shtm l [techdirt.com]

The prices are cheaper because you're not actually licensing the music.

And quit crying about iTunes, someone who can't figure out how to get around fairplay and thinks that AllOfMP3 should be the model for music sales really shouldn't be on slashdot.

Captain Copyright has heroically announced he's suing /. for copyright violation, after the vicious plagiarizers failed to read his site's asinine legal disclaimer and reproduced his valuable intellectual property. Additionally, poster jgaynor will also be sued for talking shit about captain copyright AND linking to his site in the same paragraph. Think that last sentance was hyperbole? Think again:

"permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright."

Holy Nutsack Cap'n Copyright!

More making fun of this ridiculous attempt at a valid legal statement here (disclaimer: not affiliated).

Proof of your "pennies on the dollar" claim, please.

Here is the first article article Google returned (it tallies the government subsidy for last mile infrastructure at 200 billion), but it is just scratching the surface of the total subsidies in confiscated land and core internet lines. It not hard to find thousands of similar tales. It's not not like this is a secret or anything. This is pretty well documented public knowledge.

Also, the government doesn't actually DO anything like you suggest. They have contractors do it.

I see, so if the government pays someone else to kick me out of my home and move troops in for free room and board it is not unconstitutional. What an interesting and moronic assertion.

Over time, such things pay for themselves, and selling "used" wires for less than the cost of installation sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Brand new, never lit fiber is not "used." It does not "pay for itself" at all. It is the government giving money and special privileges (including a police enforced monopoly) to certain companies that are now (as usual) breaking their end of the deal. This is a tired theme in US history. The government makes a deal with private industry "for the good of the people." The private industry becomes wealthy and then bribes the government so they no longer have to keep their half of the bargain.

You've also failed to address every other point I made in my previous post. Give it up already.

No, this is why we don't want any single country/continent controlling the internet. This proposal would (if it were ever created) only affect emails sent in Europe. However, what would happen if say the US controlled (run under contract from the deparment of commerce) ICANN decided to implement a tax on domain names? One which the entire world was required to pay, without any service guarantees or say into how the moneys used? That would be a disaster, I'm sure you'd agree.

Except it already has. Twice. This affects everyone.

So while I completly agree that we don't want Europe controlling the net, or Asia, or Australia, neither do I belive it should be under the sole juristiction of any single government (this includes America).

Like many things, there are actually existing laws to do this -- they're just never enforced. To apply for a patent, you have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that you are the true inventor and have disclosed all information you know that would be relevant to the examination of the application. Bruce Perens has suggested we start enforcing this more. But there are quite a few difficulties with this.

One of the most difficult issues is proving that the submitor knew that what he submitted was obvious to anyone. If we could lower the requirements to say that if it's obvious to someone skilled in the art, then there would be a presumption of guilt. That would help, but has some constitutional issues. Your idea of an administrative fee might help, but I don't think it would help much, since you'd have to have really large fees to effect large companies.

Techdirt has a different story on what caused the outages. The info they have came from here.

Not only that, but political decision makers will then get tons of complaints from these parents...look to these studies to pull some numbers from to make their arguments...and pass legislation that is unjust, asinine, and just plain ignorant.

Also thought I'd include a nice analysis of this "study" that tears it apart. Read it here.

This isn't nickels and dimes you literary bed bug. This is almost a 3x1 ratio on the same product line where both cases are well built! But now I know what fool will by a lifetime warranty on a $100 briefcase for 280 bucks when the comparable item is MADE OF ALUMINUM and padded as well. It isn't aluminum foil - get a warranty on the computer instead.

But as long as your criticizing me by endowing what I typed with egotystical emotion (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060213/1558206 .shtml), I'd like to congratulate you for your wonderfully rich braggings about being a traveling photographer. Let's hope your photos are better than your retorts.

Yet you still haven't provided an example where a $100 steal of a case let your father or second cousin's girlfriend's old dog skippy's circus bound littermate with 6 legs down in the past. If you're going to tell me how stupid I am, might I suggest telling a story about a counter example to what I said, not a re-affirmation of how fantaboliciously accurate the article's reviews were.

Finally, mmmmmmyyyyyyyyyyy daddy used to repair US embassies outside of the Europea and was impressed by my purchase - oh, and my computer still works. So go cover Iraq - I'll send you a t-shirt to wear.

To anyone reading this who hasn't lost their sense of logic what I'm suggesting in simple - if you're even glancing at the price of a product, be diligent, find a great deal and save the money for more important things - like a logic book for your friend the photographer.