Slashdot Mirror

Slashback's updates tonight (read on below) have more on Dataplay, background on the PowerPC that Apple and IBM have been brewing, the return (triumphant?) of XviD, Neal Stephenson's next opus, and more.

Pins and needles, pawns and bishops. s20451 writes "It looked grim earlier in the week, but following a fifth game meltdown by Kramnik and a brilliant game 6 by Fritz, the computer has tied the match 3-3. Betting on the computer in game 6 would have brought you a 7-1 return! I'll be on the phone to Vegas."

The new, new, new economy has room for camels. SwiftOne writes "According to their website, The Perl Journal has gotten enough subscriptions to begin online release (the planning of which was previously covered, along with the concerns about not reaching their goal. The first (next) issue is expected in early November."

Maybe it was the 15th-mover disadvantage. melt writes "Dataplay, the Boulder-based manufacturer of quarter-sized recordable discs and drives, finally called it quits on Friday, October 11, 2002. The remaining 120 employees (who have been on furlough for the past few weeks) have been let go and the company has closed shop. They are looking for a buyer for the remaining pieces. Full story at the Rocky Mtn News web site."

Zoom in until you see little canyons ... Twirlip of the Mists writes "IBM's chief scientist for their iSeries family of servers (a.k.a. the AS/400 family) has an article on iseriesnetwork.com describing the somewhat confusing history of the POWER4 microprocessor. In light of recent speculation about a possible relationship between IBM and Apple, this article is of particular interest. It clears up-- at least partially-- some of the complex, incestuous relationships between the PowerPC architecture, the PowerPC processor family, and the POWER4 processor. As an added bonus, there's some talk about the upcoming POWER5 and POWER6 processors near the end. The key phrase (and disclaimer): 'expected to appear in 2004.'"

Shame on Sigma. Gruturo writes "After almost 3 months the XviD project and website have reopened, though Sigma Designs has not complied yet with all their requests (they still carry their copyright on many modified sources). In these last 2 1/2 months the project still went underway, although unofficially:
B-frames are practically ready, motion estimation algorithms have been improved, work started for Qpel implementation."

Please stop teasing us. If you liked Cryptonomicon, you've probably been impatiently watching the announcements of when the next Stephenson book would appear. wka writes "Previous false starts notwithstanding, Amazon says Neal Stephenson's new novel Quicksilver will be published in January."

And next week, building box-girder bridges. scubacuda writes "Lawmeme has released Part III to their Law School in a Nutshell series (Part I and Part II were previously featured on /.)"

Slashback's updates tonight (read on below) have more on Dataplay, background on the PowerPC that Apple and IBM have been brewing, the return (triumphant?) of XviD, Neal Stephenson's next opus, and more.

Pins and needles, pawns and bishops. s20451 writes "It looked grim earlier in the week, but following a fifth game meltdown by Kramnik and a brilliant game 6 by Fritz, the computer has tied the match 3-3. Betting on the computer in game 6 would have brought you a 7-1 return! I'll be on the phone to Vegas."

The new, new, new economy has room for camels. SwiftOne writes "According to their website, The Perl Journal has gotten enough subscriptions to begin online release (the planning of which was previously covered, along with the concerns about not reaching their goal. The first (next) issue is expected in early November."

Maybe it was the 15th-mover disadvantage. melt writes "Dataplay, the Boulder-based manufacturer of quarter-sized recordable discs and drives, finally called it quits on Friday, October 11, 2002. The remaining 120 employees (who have been on furlough for the past few weeks) have been let go and the company has closed shop. They are looking for a buyer for the remaining pieces. Full story at the Rocky Mtn News web site."

Zoom in until you see little canyons ... Twirlip of the Mists writes "IBM's chief scientist for their iSeries family of servers (a.k.a. the AS/400 family) has an article on iseriesnetwork.com describing the somewhat confusing history of the POWER4 microprocessor. In light of recent speculation about a possible relationship between IBM and Apple, this article is of particular interest. It clears up-- at least partially-- some of the complex, incestuous relationships between the PowerPC architecture, the PowerPC processor family, and the POWER4 processor. As an added bonus, there's some talk about the upcoming POWER5 and POWER6 processors near the end. The key phrase (and disclaimer): 'expected to appear in 2004.'"

Shame on Sigma. Gruturo writes "After almost 3 months the XviD project and website have reopened, though Sigma Designs has not complied yet with all their requests (they still carry their copyright on many modified sources). In these last 2 1/2 months the project still went underway, although unofficially:
B-frames are practically ready, motion estimation algorithms have been improved, work started for Qpel implementation."

Please stop teasing us. If you liked Cryptonomicon, you've probably been impatiently watching the announcements of when the next Stephenson book would appear. wka writes "Previous false starts notwithstanding, Amazon says Neal Stephenson's new novel Quicksilver will be published in January."

And next week, building box-girder bridges. scubacuda writes "Lawmeme has released Part III to their Law School in a Nutshell series (Part I and Part II were previously featured on /.)"

PMuse and others wrote in about the oral arguments held today in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case challenging the most recent 20-year retroactive extension of copyright terms. Google News will cover the mainstream news stories about it; transcripts of the arguments will eventually be posted; but as I write this the only first-hand reports appear to be LawMeme and the Associated Press. Reader McSpew adds a link to a piece by Steven Levy explaining the importance of Eldred v. Ashcroft and what's really at stake. Update: 10/09 19:12 GMT by T : khkramer links to his own summary of the arguments, writing "I have press credentials at the court, so I was able to take notes during the argument, and in the summary I tried to cover all of the major issues that the Justices asked about."

Ramakrishnan M writes "LawMeme has a two part article (more to come) on reading and interpreting Legalese for geeks, titled "Law School in a nutshell". Here is the Part 1 and part 2"

Ramakrishnan M writes "LawMeme has a two part article (more to come) on reading and interpreting Legalese for geeks, titled "Law School in a nutshell". Here is the Part 1 and part 2"

An Anonymous Coward writes: "LawMeme has an excellent response to William F. Adkinson's critique of Larry Lessig's ideas on copyright reform. What I found most interesting about the article though, was the link to this paper by Ernest Miller (of Yale's Information Society Project) and Joan Feigenbaum (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptography) that says we should take the copy out of copyright."

An Anonymous Coward writes: "LawMeme has an excellent response to William F. Adkinson's critique of Larry Lessig's ideas on copyright reform. What I found most interesting about the article though, was the link to this paper by Ernest Miller (of Yale's Information Society Project) and Joan Feigenbaum (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptography) that says we should take the copy out of copyright."

An Anonymous Coward writes: "LawMeme has an excellent response to William F. Adkinson's critique of Larry Lessig's ideas on copyright reform. What I found most interesting about the article though, was the link to this paper by Ernest Miller (of Yale's Information Society Project) and Joan Feigenbaum (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptography) that says we should take the copy out of copyright."

forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."

Publiux writes: "LawMeme is reporting today that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the Child Online Protection Act because using community standards to determine what could be harmful to minors was not overly broad and thus not unconstitutional. Before you stop spreading your 'sexually explicit material' online, a lower court still has to determine if the law is unconstitutional for other reasons." Snibor Eoj submits this link to coverage at Yahoo! as well. Other readers link to AP coverage running at NandoTimes and the decision itself (PDF).

Publiux writes: "LawMeme is reporting today that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the Child Online Protection Act because using community standards to determine what could be harmful to minors was not overly broad and thus not unconstitutional. Before you stop spreading your 'sexually explicit material' online, a lower court still has to determine if the law is unconstitutional for other reasons." Snibor Eoj submits this link to coverage at Yahoo! as well. Other readers link to AP coverage running at NandoTimes and the decision itself (PDF).

anewsome writes "Yale Law School students conducted a mock Eldred v. Ashcroft trial, heard before judges Hugh Bownes on the First Circuit, John Walker Jr. on the Second, and Morris Arnold on the Eighth. Surprise: Eldred Won. Check out the full story here. In related news, here's a terrific Recorder piece on the debate over the IP section of ABA taking sides in the case."

anon writes: "Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting (an AOL Time Warner company), was recently interviewed on the future of television. In the interview, Mr. Kellner said some very interesting things, including characterizing those who skip television commercials as thieves.' To help develop Mr. Kellner's unfortunately common (at least in Hollywood) view of copyright, LawMeme offers the top ten new copyright crimes, as well as further choice quotes and commentary from Mr. Kellner's interview."

peddrenth asks: "Software licenses are, we keep saying, difficult to read. The public clicks OK without reading, either implicitly trusting or mistrusting us the software authors. There have been calls recently for companies to clean-up the license, to bullet, section, and colour their licenses, to remove THE UPPERCASE and to draw charts and graphs to explain the license. Anyone who's had to read a 3-page document in a 3"x1" textbox knows how useful this would be. The GPL is one of the most important licenses in the world, and appears on thousands of products. Everything from windows programs to operating systems to people's artwork requires understanding and acceptance of the GNU GPL. Should we, the free software community, take the first step in this effort, and show the world what an easy-to-read license looks like? Would it be useful if long textual software licenses stood out like a sore thumb amongst the cool, pretty, and clear free licenses?" Many may think the GPL Preamble to be clear enough, and this may be true. However there are a lot of people out there that would like to read the entire license so that they know exactly what they may be getting into, before they agree to it. This usually implies being able reading the actual license, and not just the preamble.

"Should we use such a comparison to show the public how they're being manipulated by terms in a EULA they don't read or understand, and encourage other license-writers to include the graphs and tables themselves, showing the public what a license really means?

What would be your ideal license, what poster would you draw to explain the GPL to a child, a PHB, or an artist? Would you stick with the text, or can you think of anything better?"

jamie interjects: The root of the problem is that "intellectual property" is a kludge of a natural human understanding of property rights. Useful, but a kludge. You have to invent many oddball concepts to keep up the pretense that ideas are property. The GPL is a kludge (strict and precise licensing terms) implemented on top of a kludge (copyright law) and, in English or in code, there is no short and simple way to describe complex things.

jeffy124 writes "In response to the Turner CEO's PVR ad-skips are theft comments, Yale's LawMeme has posted a short list of other new forms of theft and crime that will soon appear in our daily lives."

An Anonymous Coward writes "Less than a week after it was decided that virtual child pornography was legal, a bill has been introduced into Congress that makes it easier for wiretaps to be authorized by allowing material constituting or containing child pornography to be valid grounds for requesting a wiretap."

An Anonymous Coward writes "As noted previously, the Supreme Court has ruled the "Virtual" child porn act unconstitutional. LawMeme has an analysis of the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Supreme Court decision that discusses the case's impact on copyright, DMCA, CBDTPA, and machinima as the future of pornography."

An Anonymous Coward writes "As noted previously, the Supreme Court has ruled the "Virtual" child porn act unconstitutional. LawMeme has an analysis of the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Supreme Court decision that discusses the case's impact on copyright, DMCA, CBDTPA, and machinima as the future of pornography."

An anonymous reader sent in: "As reported three previous times, Blizzard is attempting to squash the Battle.net emulator and open source bnetd project. The EFF has taken the case. Read the press release. LawMeme also has a satiric fable."

anewsome writes "As reported previously several times, Blizzard has sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP of bnetd (which develops an open source Battle.net emulator). Lawmeme.org (from the Yale Law School) has published a long piece with lots of background and legal analysis on the case. Conclusion: Blizzard has an uphill legal battle."

Stalwart reviewer Duncan Lawie contributed this review of Susan Solomon's The Coldest March, the epic tale of an early and tragic polar expedition, not long after returning from an Antarctic trip of his own. (Imagine spending New Year's en route to the southern ice.) Duncan's been cooking up some other things lately, too -- like an interview with Science Fiction writer Ken Macleod and a review of the LotR movie from a "bookist" perspective. The Coldest March: Scott's Fatal Antarctic Expedition author Susan Solomon pages ~400 publisher Yale University Press (Australasia: Melbourne University Press) rating 8.5 reviewer Duncan Lawie ISBN 0-300-08967-8 summary "Cold equations" throw a new light on significant events of the Heroic Age of Antarctic exploration. Susan Solomon is a senior scientist at NOAA , and an acclaimed one. In 1986 she led a scientific expedition to Antarctica to investigate the causes of the ozone hole; she subsequently received the USA's National Medal of Science for her insights. Whilst working from such locations as McMurdo Station, Solomon had the opportunity to see the bases and places discovered in the early years of the twentieth century. This led her to a new "hobby." Solomon became interested in the history of Antarctic exploration and in the disjunction between the common belief in Scott's incompetence and the apparent perceptiveness of his and his party's own writing. As an atmospheric scientist, Solomon decided to embark upon the exercise of tracking down the weather data of the era and testing it against data subsequently collected.

The Coldest March is the outcome of Solomon's interest in her hobby. It is, in essence, a history of Captain Scott's voyages to the Antarctic, a story which has been told many times in the decades since Scott's death. Yet, never before has the history been focused through the lens of true science. Science was held in high esteem by these Edwardian explorers and is the continuing basis for human occupation of the Antarctic. Solomon's close attention to the meteorological record becomes genuinely interesting as it is possible to make an intelligent comparison between the historical data and the automated data collection of recent decades. The modern route to the Pole from McMurdo Sound is close to that used by the British explorers 90 to 100 years ago. Whilst few attempt the journey on the ground, automated weather stations are vital for US Antarctic Research Program flights in the region. This data, collected every ten minutes since 1984, provides a statistically significant basis for investigation.

The technical substance of what Solomon has to say in this book first reached publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in a paper co-authored with Charles R. Stearns. Those few dense pages form a scientific data quality check and comparison, with the conclusion that the March of 1912 was significantly colder than the average, that Scott's weather forecasters had collected sufficient data to have a good idea of what that average was and that the unexpected cold was a primary factor in the deaths of the party returning from the Pole. These cold facts have been expanded into a solidly researched history of Scott's Antarctic career, with a strong focus on the collection and interpretation of weather data.

The basic point of this book should prove within the grasp of anyone capable of interpreting a graph. The historical issues, however, require a larger context. The book approaches the debate on Scott through the clever technique of "the visitor". At the start of each chapter, there is a vignette offering a view of the modern Antarctic experience which parallels the main subject of the chapter. In this space, Solomon can provide informal commentary and bind the historical discussion with description of the achievements and misunderstandings that are still possible after over 40 years of continuous human occupation of the continent. The visitor provides an access for the modern reader to a well known story. Scott's Pole party arrived at the South Pole in January 1912, five weeks after Amundsen. He and his four companions died on the return journey, Scott, Wilson and Bowers only 11 miles from a supply depot. At the time this tragedy quickly became a heroic example; some modern writers have considered Scott's whole Antarctic experience closer to farce. The heritage of the expedition often turns on the perceived reputation of Scott himself; this book reflects positively on Scott and his colleagues, principally because of the primacy of doing good science in their work. Nevertheless, it acknowledges the mistakes made by both Scott and his rival and recognises the strengths of each party. It is a decent account of the so-called "Race to the Pole", providing a setting in which the relevance of the weather thesis to Scott's death can be fully developed and strongly argued. By dredging bare facts to the surface, The Coldest March has rendered almost every published history of the period out of date.

Each generation seems to find its own vision of Scott. Solomon sees him as a frustrated scientist and, at its centre, this book is a celebration of scientific method. It is tempting to think that the author has seen most strongly the elements of Scott that a modern scientific mindset might wish to find -- as earlier generations have praised him as a heroic exemplar of the British Empire or damned him as a middle class bumbler. Countering this are the words of members of Scott's own scientific party, many of whom relished his ability to ask the right question. Coming from such an original perspective, and providing genuinely new information, this is as significant a book as Apsley Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World, published 80 years ago. The Coldest March is a wonderful (re-)introduction to the Matter of Scott.

You can The Coldest March at Fatbrain. If this review interests you, perhaps you'll enjoy the Coldest March website. More information, incuding sample chapters from the book, are available at Yale University Press.

bromoseltzer writes: "Know your universe! Our Fine Structure Time Service keeps you in touch with your atomic underpinnings."

An Anonymous Coward was left with some interesting pieces of hardware he would like some help identifying: "I work on the Yale Solar Racing Team. Recently we were cleaning out our electronics lab and found two ancient-looking boxes that, as the team legend says, originated in an ICBM somewhere and somehow got donated to us!"

"Can anyone tell us what these are:

• A Model 4006 PCM Decommutator (big white box, many toggle switches... it, apparently, decommutates things)
• 
  
  and
  
  
• A Model 760 Hybrid Data Measurement System (little orange box, connectors, no switches)

More to the point, for a cash-strapped undergraduate engineering team, are they worth any money?"

An Anonymous Coward was left with some interesting pieces of hardware he would like some help identifying: "I work on the Yale Solar Racing Team. Recently we were cleaning out our electronics lab and found two ancient-looking boxes that, as the team legend says, originated in an ICBM somewhere and somehow got donated to us!"

"Can anyone tell us what these are:

• A Model 4006 PCM Decommutator (big white box, many toggle switches... it, apparently, decommutates things)
• 
  
  and
  
  
• A Model 760 Hybrid Data Measurement System (little orange box, connectors, no switches)

More to the point, for a cash-strapped undergraduate engineering team, are they worth any money?"

Adam Brate, Slashdot reader, sent us a review of Cyberselfish: Technolibertarianism, a book which takes a look at the "cyber" culture, and what it means. It sounds interesting, although perhaps a bit off-base - comment below if you've read it. Cyberselfish author Pulina Borsook pages 256 publisher PublicAffairs, 05/2000 rating 8/10 reviewer Adam Brate ISBN 1891620789 summary A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech I heard about Cyberselfish when driving around Vermont Memorial Day weekend from used bookstore to used bookstore. The NPR station was broadcasting an interview with Cyberselfish author Paulina Borsook, a writer who worked for Wired during its glory years. I was put off by the book's wretched title, but engrossed by the subject: the powerful undercurrent of libertarianism that flows through high-tech circles. I have been astounded but not amazed at the deeply adolescent and peevish libertarian attitudes that so many techies cling to, from gun worship to fear of governmental Internet regulation. Listening to Borsook speak intelligently and cogently about technolibertarianism made me want her book very much.

This month I garnered a copy of Cyberselfish, and I'm still appalled with the title (which comes from an eponymous essay for Mother Jones she wrote in July 1996, when such cyberlanguage wasn't so cybertrite). Cyberselfish is a book-length essay, in fact a somewhat thinly edited series of linked essays. There's a rush of immediacy and wit; for a random example, "Polyamory is the preferred term of art; it's gender-neutral, where polygamy and polyandry are not, and allows for all persuasions of partner choice (gay/straight/bi/it depends)." With the freshness and informality comes flaws. There is too much repeated material in the book. It's clear that essays written at different times have been cobbled together. Reading the book straight through is like reading some multi-volume series straight through, in which the characters and history are rehashed at the beginning of each book.

Cyberselfish looks at a few specific examples of technolibertarianism in depth: Bionomics, cypherpunks, Wired magazine, and Silicon Valley's impressive lack of philanthropy. Each time Borsook exposes the compassionless, fearful, posturing, politically myopic core, without dismissing the good aspects of the high-tech culture and individuals. For example, she thinks fighting for privacy rights is good, but obsessing about it and descending into rabid, paranoid ranting on alt.cypherpunks is scary. She moves smoothly from the historical to the academic to the personal, deliberately exposing her own frailities and biases while she examines those of others.

To give a deeper example of the content of Cyberselfish, Bionomics is the use of biological (and particularly Darwinian) metaphors to describe economic processes, as popularized by Michael Rothschild (Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem) and then the The Bionomics Institute (TBI). Borsook convincingly points out through both empirical observation and reasoned analysis that Bionomics boils down to economic libertarianism, where government involvement is wrong and the most cut-throat, efficient and entrepeneurial businesses are the best. Ecological metaphors are used in Bionomics only when they're useful and sexy: The ecosystem of Hawaii was used as a metaphor for the fragility of protected industries. Under Bionomics logic, Hawaii's beautiful, lush, peaceful ecosystem is to be derided. Bionomics uses metaphors to draw syllogistic conclusions. Doing that can be powerfully convincing but amounts to hand-waving and emotional appeals. Borsook cuts through the smoke and mirrors.

After a few years, the Bionomics Institute conferences were (literally) taken over by the Cato Institute, the premier libertarian think tank in the nation. The annual Bionomics conterences began in 1993. The 1997 conference was the Cato/Bionomics Conference; 1998, the "Annual Cato Institute/Forbes ASAP Conference on Technology and Society." TBI morphed into software-startup Maxager, which intends to offer Bionomical tools to companies. Borsook wonders what meaning can be ascribed to the success or the failure of the company. If Maxager fails, is it because it wasn't Bionomically good enough, or just because of the many uncontrollable factors that cause the vast majority of startups to fail? If it succeeds, does it validate Bionomics, or just the good connections the founder has with Silicon Valley venture capitalists?

The other chapters are just as interesting. Cyberselfish sharply describes all the archetypes of the technolibertarians, from the neo-hippie polyandric Burning Man attendee to the Lexus-driving, 100-hour-a-week, plugged-in entrepeneur with a sprawling bungalow in Santa Clara county.

One of the most crystalline passages in the book describes Eric Raymond's leaking of the Halloween Document, written by Microsoft program manager Vinod Valloppillil. The two clearly have vast ideological differences, the open-source cowboy and the Evil Empire functionary, but they're both hard-core libertarians, an entirely unreported fact. In Borsook's words, "It was rather like discovering that both a liberal and a conservative senator had both acquired their law degrees from Yale: no news here."

As I said before, the book is somewhat haphazardly put together, and nearly every sentence is to some degree contentious; even someone who agrees with her basic position will find reason to quibble. Cyberselfish doesn't come near to answering all the questions it raises. Borsook doesn't really tackle the paradox that "libertarians celebrate the cult of the individual" but Open Source celebrates the collective. What does it mean to be an Open Source libertarian?

I personally think it's somewhat unfair to attack those flaws, as they're inexorably part of Cyberselfish's loose, immediate, opinionated, and conversational style. It's kind of like how Slashdot's open forums allow for a review like this and the inevitable "hot grits" responses.

Purchase this book at fatbrain.

shpoffo writes "In relation to the recent /. article i thought i'd give people a heads-up on some more console info. For those of you with the time, interest and know-how there are a few really good resources around for reverse engineering most of the major video game consoles such as Jeff Frohwein's site for the Gameboy. There's others for the N64 here and here, Dreamcast, Playstation, TurboGraphix, Genesis, and the Nintendo."

Last week, Metallica became the first major rock group (quickly followed by Dr Dre) to file suit against a music-sharing Web site, in this case Napster. They claim they're protecting their art, but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net. Prior to this, the battle -- currently in the federal courts -- was between the recording industry and so-called music "pirate" sites. Metallica managed to instantly spook Harvard, Yale and scores of other colleges into booting Napster off their servers. Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. (Read More)

Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.

Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.

Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.

But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.

"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."

It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.

Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.

"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."

Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:

"To the members of the Yale community,

"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.

"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .

"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.

"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."

The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.

For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.

Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.

Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.

Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.

Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.

Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.

Last week, Metallica became the first major rock group (quickly followed by Dr Dre) to file suit against a music-sharing Web site, in this case Napster. They claim they're protecting their art, but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net. Prior to this, the battle -- currently in the federal courts -- was between the recording industry and so-called music "pirate" sites. Metallica managed to instantly spook Harvard, Yale and scores of other colleges into booting Napster off their servers. Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. (Read More)

Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.

Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.

Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.

But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.

"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."

It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.

Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.

"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."

Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:

"To the members of the Yale community,

"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.

"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .

"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.

"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."

The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.

For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.

Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.

Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.

Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.

Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.

Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.

emc3 writes "Those wacky scientists are getting small again. Some folks at Yale have come up with a reversible molecular switch. And at Princeton, they've discovered a method of getting a sheet of resin to assemble ordered arrays of nano-pillars. They say that this process could lead to a new generation of flat-panel displays or DRAM. " Nanites. It's what's for dinner.

techtrend linked us up to a paper from Mark Reed and James Tour on single molecule memory which, if it comes about will pretty much make space irrelevant. They say the technology is 3-5 years off.

Sit back and get jiggy with tonights Quickies: First up, jamiemccarthy sent us a Magic 8-Ball that claims to be operated by Legos. And if you're into those remote control legos, Paddy noted that there is new stuff on the lego website. Todays stranges item comes from Chris Henesy who sent us official NASA procedure for Viking Raids. Michael Van Vertloo sent us linkage to a webcam from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depositoryso you conspiracy theorists can keep an eye on it. Bogatyr noted that there now is actually a website selling stuff from the matrix. No, not the minigun, but sunglasses and stuff. tj2sent us linkage to an interview where George Lucas blaims the internet for Jar Jar sucking so badly. Mike sent us a page that tracks Strange things sold on ebay. Finally, markhb sent us a Washington Post profile of Marc Andreeson where he talks about assorted things, and even plugs Slashdot as one of his favorite sites (thanks Marc!) And finally, to bookend this Fresh block of quickies, harb sent us lyrics to the classic (cough) Will Smith Song "Men in Black" for Linux geeks.

mhiller asks this interesting question: "When those of us who code refer to ourselves as 'hackers' in mixed company, we always have to explain exactly what we mean by that - that we're not trying to crack into NORAD computers with our machines or anything else like that. Experience has shown that it's hard for a smaller group of peopleto act against the forces of linguistic change in the larger world. This is particularly true in the case of pejoration; when a word acquires a negative or taboo meaning it tends to stick. For this reason, I feel that our best efforts may not be enough to shake off the definition of 'hacker' that the public has largely locked on to. Perhaps we should promote the use of a different term instead." I've always been one for educating people on the proper terms, but with the media still largely not-getting-it, would we be better off finding another group moniker? There's more. Click the link if you're interested. mhiller had more to say. Here's the last bit:

"The confusion stems from the fact that we're using the term 'hacker' in its earlier, non-pejorative sense, but that's not the meaning it's taken on in the popular imagination. To Random Joe on the street, the term 'hacker' means what we call a 'cracker'.

Being a dabbler in linguistics, I can tell you that this isn't a unique process. When a formerly positive or benign word starts taking on a negative connotation, linguists call it pejoration. For example, the term 'villain' originally meant 'belonging to the villa', and referred to people now usually called peasants.

The best thing I could come up with was the term 'white-knight hacker', which isn't very good. So I ask Slashdot: What might be a better (or at least less confusing) way for us to refer to ourselves?"