Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Goes After Gnutella
President of The US writes "C|Net is reporting that the MPAA is going after individual users of Gnutella through their ISPs. 'What we're trying to do is educate the population about what is appropriate, both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal standpoint,' is what they are saying, but it looks like more of the usual intimidation tactics. It looks like they want to scare individual users from even trying to share movies, for fear they will be cut off from their precious broadband. Will the ISPs cave in?"
Yes, they will. But its gonna be interesting to see where this goes.
"That doesn't change the fact that it is theft. Taking something without permission is still illegal."
So if I meet you in the street and you light my cigarette, I've stolen the fire from match manufacturers?
We need to start a What Would Dogbert Do?" movement.
I don't think it is valid to compare a flame made with a cheap lighter to copyright ownership of intellectual property. Bic doesn't licence lighters, they sell them, and the music and movie owners licence movies, they don't sell them.
If you don't like intellectual property, fine, but the GNU-ish ideal isn't exactly taking over the world that I can tell, despite what the "free software" fans like to think. I probably won't be writing free software because I need to do something that MAKES MONEY, and I can't live on tips and I can't support users thousands of miles away.
It is the software or music owner's every right to determine the distribution and sales method of the product they make, and I believe in fair compensation. Yes, some companies take it too far, but there is the other extreme of sharing movies that you don't own the rights to share.
Paradox: Slashdot has continually said that the MPAA should got after individual copyright infrigers rather than services like Napster. Yet as soon as the MPAA does that it becomes labelled "intimidation tactics".
Answer: There is no Slashdot.
At least, not in the sense you mean. There are hundreds of thousands of readers here, tens of thousands of occasional posters. We do not agree on everything. Slashdot does not march in lockstep with libertarianism, communism, or whatever gestalt you think you have assembled from hundreds of people shouting at each other every day.
In this case in particular, a large number of Slashdot readers apparantly believe that copyright violation is wrong, but that copyright violators should be individually punished, not the authors, possessors (DeCSS), or providers (Napster) of tools they happen to use. I fall into this category, for example. On the other hand, there are a large number of Slashdot readers who believe that "intellectual property" isn't property, and that because copyright violation isn't theft it isn't wrong. "President of the US" may be in this group.
There is no hypocrisy here, because the two groups do not overlap.
*snort*
So? everything is a social product. Let's say you manufacture something. You do not do this in a vacuum. You do pay the people who contribute directly, employees, supplies, etc. But, what about the guy that built the building that you work in, the guy who paved the road that you drive your products over, the folks who built the truck that you use to transport goods. Do you have to include them in a cut of your profits? Do they, therefore have the right to take your goods?
The answer is: no. Those people have already been compensated by you in some manner (you rent or bought the building, you paid taxes to get the road paved, you bought or rent the truck). In the case of intellectual property, why would we treat anything differently? The intellectual work performed by someone should be just as valid in the marketplace, and be justly reward, as phsyical labor.
The second point is utterly baffling. Let me get this straight: if you are a dull, plodding worker who punches a time card, by all means, you should benefit from your labor. However, if you're talented, gifted, or busted your ass to be able to creating something new, innovative, and popular... well, jack, you don't get squat for that.
What a load of horse shit. Who the hell is this Hettinger dweeb to decide that if I make a symphony, that I can't benefit from it monitarily? Because "natural talent" is involved? Does that mean that since I'm out of shape, I should get paid more to go dig a ditch than someone who's fit, since it is a lot easier for him? No, the end result is what we judge. In Hettinger's mind, for the greatest reward, I should find the job I'm least suited to do, and go struggle with it. Obvious idiocy.
From the practical, market standpoint, if we want to see more of something, like innovation, we reward it. Of course, the market isn't perfect. I think it's pretty obscene that someone playing a child's game ends up making more than several hundred teachers, who are responsible for educating our young. But, unless someone can wave a magic wand and remove the necessity for people to pay for food, shelter, and the other necessities, not to mention luxuries, we need to somehow compensate people for the intellectual work they do. The market is the only functional way we have found to do that. And to enable the market to work, we have to treat intellectual labor as if it were physical labor, within the bounds of copyright law.
The answer to this and other tantalizing questions is of course - privacy.
- Use freenet.
- Subscribe to a Zero-Knowledge type of service.
- Use trusted, logless proxies with SSL.
By default there's no privacy on today's internet, but the technology is there. So far the convenience factor has prevented most privacy technologies from achieving critical mass, but draconian content-control powergrabs by the MPAA and RIAA might just tip the balance.
Slashdot has continually said that the MPAA should got after individual copyright infrigers rather than services like Napster. Yet as soon as the MPAA does that it becomes labelled "intimidation tactics". I read the article and from what I gathered Excite@Home told people if they didn't stop sharing copyright material they would lose their service.
What, exactly, is the problem with that?
Sure, there's an easy way around patents. You go to a company and say:
"I have a really great idea that I can't afford to make on my own but that's right up your alley. If you'll just sign this contract I'll tell you all about it"
The contract would essentially say "If you use this idea you agree to pay me XXX dollars or YY cents per unit sold. In exchange I won't tell anybody else about the idea".
Now once the company starts producing the units anybody can duplicate the invention and make their own, even improving on it. If the company is smart they'll keep the project under wraps until they're ready to hit the market, then they'll go out there with a reasonable price and large quantities. If they do things right it will take a while for competitors to have a means to challenge them. They will have trouble meeting the price unless they can take advantage of economies of scale, and if the invention is fairly complex it will take a while for them to figure it all out so they can make their own version.
The only tricky thing is making that initial contract well. You have to make sure they don't get away with building something just different enough that it doesn't qualify then not paying you anything. But any good lawyer should be able to word it properly.
The best thing about this system is that it only works for useful, non-obvious inventions. If someone were to try this with an invention like "you click once on something to buy it", copying the invention would be so trivial that nobody would want to pay much for the right to use it first.
Sharing movies is illegal. If someone shares a movie, they aren't going to buy it. That's money lost for the makers. What's wrong with crime prevention.
I'll make sure never invite friends over to watch a movie I rented - since I'm sharing the movie with them and all... wouldn't want the multi-billionaires to be harmed by me not forcing my friends to cough up $4 each at Blockbluster...
If ideas can't be property because they are social products, then private possessions or property of almost any kind should also not exist. I cannot build a car without suppliers of energy; miners; rail and port infrastructure. Nor can I sell it without roads.
A car is a product of a social process, one that is mediated by the exchange of money for private goods and exaction of taxes for public goods.
And, it seems to me that it would be disastrous to build any kind of a system based on rewarding people for the the amount of effort or risk they undertake. How many fools do you know who take unnecessary risks, or monomaniacs who work endlessly at pointless tasks? Capitalism is reasonably workable because people are paid based on the willingness of other people to pay them; we don't always like the results, but it is better than most. The relationship between risk and reward is not mathematically fixed -- it is just in practice people are unwilling to take higher risks if the expected return is higher. To say people should be rewarded for risks sounds like the same thing, but it is not -- in fact it is logically inconsistent.
Private property and possessions are a social convention that works for some kinds of things, because there is a maximization of effeciency if we allow peole to claim exclusive benefits from their work. More cars get built when the companies building them and consumers buying them get most of the benfit, than if the benefit were spread among all producers and consumers. Land gets used more wisely if you have to deal with what's left after you exploit it. There is a happy confluence between the pursuit of private gain and the maximization of public benefit; therefore the public can be expected to support private property.
Ideas are a different story. The efficiency of idea production is not enhanced by restricting the flow of ideas or the benefits of ideas in the same way that physical goods are. Society does not benefit from the restriction of ideas, and therefore can't be expected to support it. Private individuals only benefit from the restriction of ideas in that it is inconsistently practiced.
Songs, recorded performances and software are probably somewhat in between physical artifacts and pure ideas. Personally, I think that the main historical reason to support copyright was the need to attract the investment for expensive duplication, transport and marketing. I doubt that there would be fewer songs, or less variety , if there were no commercial market for music. However, it is probable that the existence of a private market for music means that different kinds of music are made than if there were no. No Phil Spector, no wall of sound. No Britney Spears. Probably plenty of corner jive, hip hop, folk, garage rock. Everyone would have a day job.
The big question is absenting the cost and complexity of producing and distributing physical artifacts, is there a need for private property in music? Commercialism changes the kind of music that is created, but whether this is benefical or not is questionable. My tastes are pretty non-commercial, but there is some commercial stuff I like a great deal (not Britney Spears).
One more thing. The thing about ideas, or songs, is that once they get into your head you really can't get voluntarily get them out. Some people here are probably old enough to remember Bobby Goldboro. He should have pay rent on all the brain cells in which "Honey" ("She wreckecd the car and she was sad/And so afraid that I'd be mad/But what the heck?")has taken up unwelcome residence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://freenet.sourceforge.net
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
>Here, they're just pathetic.
It is actually an excellent tactic.
Most of these areas have a limited number of cheap broadband options. Since MPAA is using the ISPs, a legally responsible corporation, against them, this will scare the sh*t out of the individual users. Either stop doing it or lose their sweet broadband. Which one would you chose?
This will be doublely effective because movie files can only be effectivly traded through broadband connections and university/college students are about to go home for the summer so the content available will be dramaticly reduced.
MPAA doesn't even have to go to court with any individual user to make this tactic very effective, all they have to do is convince (not legally court-style prove) the ISPs that these high-usage users are doing something illegal and breaking their EULA.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I'm not in the music biz, but it seems to me record labels should instead be *services* that artists can *employ*. There should be many and they should compete, just like garages compete for your car service dollars. Instead of the other way around, where all the artists are competing and clawing their way up to get noticed by a label which has an steel grip on a physical supply chain of artificial scarcity, which will exploit them, chew them up, and spit them out. "Some of your friends are already this fucked"...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"In the case of intellectual property, why would we treat anything differently?"
Please tell me how someone can have "compensated" any given artist, philosopher, writer, mathemetician, scientist, etc., etc., for something they invent. Markets are based on scarcity. Ideas are infinately duplicatable. Please show me a formula which generates a market value for an idea (no, as shown above, you can't use "effort", as a stupid person who works very hard, very long may create something a smart person could create in a much shorter time with much less effort).
"Who the hell is this Hettinger dweeb to decide that if I make a symphony, that I can't benefit from it monitarily?"
That's not what he's saying. He's just skeptical on the policy of granting a *monopoly* on that thing. A temporary monopoly probably *should* be created to generate incentive. However, total patent and copyright lengths are totally out of wack. What *possible* incentive could be conferred by copyrights which last 70 years **after the creator's death**?
Some people seem to think that a free market is some magic that solves all problems. "We don't *have* to deal with moral/ethical/social issues. The free market will decide!"
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm not going to get in to whether its right or wrong to pirate peoples work but I will answer a couple of your points.
:)
and they don't feel in the least bit guilty about the fact that they're committing a criminal act
That's because they are not taking something from anybody. All they are stealing is the potential for them to make more money. The "victim" doesn't lose anything physical.
To explain....
Using copyright together with non-redistribute licenses is based on the idea of artificial scarcity of a product. This is completely non-intuitive and unnatural-feeling to many people. It has worked so far, because a significant part of the price paid is for distribution and duplication. These days however, those two cost next to nothing and the people are starting to feel more and more that it's unfair to charge for these things if they can do it themselves. The industries business model is starting to fail. Remember that copyright is something that is not naturally present. It can only happen when some large authority intervenes and removes freedom from some people in order to grant protection to another group (and of course the two overlap)
How would you feel if something you'd spent 6-months of your life creating was being given away free?
Personallty, I would feel great because I do such things for the love of it and I want it to be shared by as many people as possible. (My main problem is that I'm no good at it
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I love the Ack-Acks (RIAA/MPAA). They are doing a fine job panicking as people realize the current value of their service, and are attempting to hang on to their business model with a death grip.
Look, 60 million napster fans and who knows how many video downloaders have been hit in the face with the fact the margin cost (cost to reproduce) a CD is virtually nothing. A little more than virtually nothing to reproduce a DVD, just longer because of current bandwith issues. So they can legislate all they want, but people are now aware that the only value-add the Ack-Acks add is deliver a physical product from burn-in to your local Best Buy.
And Gee!, that's gonna be irrelevant to a large portion to the population in a few years -- legitimate or not, digital dupes of oves and songs WILL be available somewhere.
It *isn't* irrelevent yet because of technology limitations. Napster is rife with lousy recordings, bad bitrates, misnamed songs, etc. Movies take up to large a percentage of a users hard drive.
So why aren't the Ack-Acks pushing to explore new value-adds while they still have the upper hand. Wouldn't it be nice to go to amazon and select 10 songs, and order a custom CD (not MP3 version either, true blue uncompressed versions)? Or select music label appproved MP3's, where you now there are no artifacts , at a specified bitrate, for $1 a song? Choosing from 40 different version, some live, some different studio riffs?
People get it -- the copy of the Madonna (insert an artist you like here) album isn't worth $16 -- it's worth maybe $1. You know where the money in art has been, historically? Live performances! That means concerts for Music and movie theaters for movies.
The Ack-Acks don't get it.
-- "Vote Democrat. Because the current crop of conservatives are just bugnut crazy."
Gotta wonder how thorough that investigation was by Ranger Online. What would happen if we all put 6 gigabytes of /dev/null on our FTP servers under the filename "Matrix.vob"? Do they just look for filenames or do they actually download the content and make sure its actually infringing material? And once you have 6 gigabytes of random, it's pretty easy to make a 6 gigabyte "Matrixkey.vob" which when xored with my 6 gigabytes of random, produces the first 6 gigabytes of the movie. Or another 6 gigabytes of random.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I should have rephrased that, it was late. If the majority of the people decide it should be LEGAL than it will be made legal. At least that is how it is supposed to work. Legality is not a question of right and wrong at all.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
I can see a crackdown on servers coming. The day may come when you won't be able to accept incoming TCP connections on consumer ISPs. Everything has to go through an official "server".
uhm, because it is different!
stealing software is quite different from stealing hardware. when you steal hardware, the inventory level of a store just went down. not so with software (ignoring the cardboard and plastic container for the software, which is nil for this argument's sake).
when you engage in profit-oriented software business, you must realize that the very nature of your goods is quite different from all the other kinds of hard merchandise.
the profit models of hard merchandise simply are not applicable to software. this is the revolt that we're seeing in the youth today. they fully know that 'stealing' a song doesn't cost the shopkeeper, the music industry or the artist nearly as much as if someone stole a cd player, itself. the rules should be different since the end effect on the 'harmed party' are quite different.
consumers today recognize that new catagories need to be defined for software sharing. if the legal system can't keep up with the times, historically people have always started grass roots movements to overturn the laws. unfortunately the laws are bought and sold by payoffs and it will be quite a long time before the revolution finally causes real change.
until then, follow your concionce! its a far better guide than current american laws.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
the notion of being paid royalties for past performances needs to be updated to today's reality. I fully agree that artists should be paid for their one-of-a-kind art. I'd have no problem paying for the time or materials or talent of a painter who paints a piece of artwork. but when he tries to get returning profit due to the mass production of said art, THAT's where I disagree. I disagree that the number of items that were mass produced (this has nothing to do with the artist, its a pure mimeo task) should cause the artist to become richer.
I would also have no problem paying for a concert ticket since the artist is clearly WORKING for his/her money at that instance. but I won't pay for copied music (whether copied by the music industry or via pirates or even end consumers) since the artist didn't earn anything in this respect (IMHO).
I guess I challenge the notion of being paid royalties AT ALL in the artistic world. I think this model is pretty well broken in today's economy. at one time, the distribution of music did cost a serious amount of money. now, cd blanks are 50 cents and burners are on many budget pc's. bandwidth is cheap and available today. the distribution middleman just isn't a requirement anymore; and I see no need to continue to pay his ransome for a job that is no longer needed.
micropayments to an artist is the clean way to go. if someone produces something I like, I'll drop some quarters into his paypal (etc) account, DIRECTLY. no middleman, no RIAA, no MPAA, etc. this is regardless of how I came upon the music. I don't want to pay distribution since I don't see the value in that anymore. I will contribute to the artist if I feel I should patronize them - but again, this is quite different from paying distribution fees (most of which goes into the record companies pocket and NOT the artist).
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Please note that this (horribly overused) style of analogy is blatantly wrong; the reason that copyright infringement is not theft is that, unlike the car, the original owner does not lose their ability to use their property. A new user simply gains that ability. Things that have this property, such as anything that can be represented in a bitstream, should not be able to be owned. To try to enforce the laws of physical theft on such items is silly and is destined to fail.
> it looks like they want to scare individual users from even trying to share movies,
And the problem here is?
Sharing movies is illegal. If someone shares a movie, they aren't going to buy it. That's money lost for the makers. What's wrong with crime prevention.
You don't get front-page articles on slashdot about people putting locks in shops to stop people to stealing the merchandise, so why should it be any different when try and stop other kinds of crime that costs money?
I don't understand why people are so defensive of pirates. I hear people talking about it all the time, and they don't feel in the least bit guilty about the fact that they're committing a criminal act.
Moreover, it's not simply a 'white-collar', victimless crime. Piracy does hurt people.
Games, which people constantly defend the pirating of, cost millions of dollars to create. Talented people put their very being into creating them. The same goes for movies.
How would you feel if something you'd spent 6-months of your life creating was being given away free?
And that a supposedly reputable website was defending this theft?
I can't see how people can object to actions that stop piracy - people seem to think no-one gets hurt by these things. They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too. And these are the ones that get hurt by the revenue lost.
It's never the big boss that gets hurt. Not Julia Roberts or Leonardo Di Caprio. It's the man who's packing the videos for $8/hour. It's the guy making them. He's the one losing the money.
These are the real victims of this crime, and I feel horrified that slashdot can condone it.
I don't see how the DMCA is even relevant when it sounds like what they're going after is people sharing movies (although it does appear on second thought to be related mostly in how it puts some teeth into sending a letter to the ISP, but that's not fundamental in my mind). It's one thing to have rules against things like DeCSS which is a tool, one that allows a user to act within both ethical and (previous) legal boundaries-- providing for the ability to use one's DVDs in a manner not provided for in existing hardware or software perhaps. But when has it ever been ethical or legal to share a complete copy of a movie?
And yes, I'm aware that there is a Fair Use clause, but it does not allow third parties to completely independently to provide me with a "backup copy" of something I own unless (maybe) they do it by acting on the original copy I do own. The situation on Gnutella is analogous to me setting a streetcorner stand with CD-writers and a large collection of CDs, then strangers can come by and make a copy of any CD they want, provided they bring a blank CD-R along. Whether they have their own copy of the CD is irrelevant to whether what I'm doing is legal or ethical.
On the other hand, if the entertainment industries seriously think Gnutella, DeCSS, or Napster are having any effect on their business, they really should guess again. In fact, it seems to be helping them. When I go looking for independent music, I rarely find it. Instead, I get in the habit of downloading their pop music (since it's free), but then I'm hooked so instead of saving my money for independent label CDs at a smaller record store, I just go plunk down my money at Sam Goody for some mainstream crud. I don't have the bandwidth to do movies, but I'm guessing it's the same with Gnutella and divx movies.
I do not have a signature
'What we're trying to do is educate the population about what is appropriate, both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal standpoint,'
Thats exactly why I'm protesting the DMCA. They read my mind. Glad to know we are in agreement here.
Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
"That said, this is exactly what the MPAA should be doing. Not attacking the enablers, but attacking the actual movie fans themselves."
You are correct. This is what I want to see them and the RIAA do. Why? Because this will ultimately lead to the demise of the DMCA. This is our ONLY shot to wake the masses.
Suing the customers is never a sound business model. Just ask Rambus. That's why the RIAA attacked Napster itself, instead of users, because the centralized nature of Napster allowed it. The only way to attack Gnutella IS to attack users.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
However, there is one small point missed here. That is hogwash.
The people most harmed are the musicians. When you pirate music, you are stealing from the artist who slaved to create it for you. Gnutella and Napster are theft on a huge and organised scale.
The fact that millions of ordinary Americans engage in this theft is no excuse - ethically and legally, it is wrong.
I have some friends in the recording industry here in Nova Scotia, who strive to make good folk music in the Scottish tradition. They sing in Gaelic. They are affected by napster, because it is a small market for such things. They can barely support themselves as it is, and are only kept afloat by sales of albums.
The final irony here is that the spread of napster and gnutella, and unauthorised piracy generally, would mean the collapse of such small outfits and an increase in musical homogenousness.
For the sake of variety and the small artist, I am on the side of the MPAA in this matter, for once.
If you think I am a troll, remember this:
All great truths begin as blasphemies.
-George Bernard Shaw, Annajanska.(1919)
MPAA: using dynamic IP xxx.yyy.zzz.aaa, user Bob was sharing the movie "Leonard Part VI" on 3/17/2000, at 6pm.
Bob: No I wasn't.
MPAA: We have ISP logs to prove that you were. They show your IP.
Bob: But IP's can be spoofed. Meet my expert witness...
They really can only enforce this if they raid your facility. I run gnotella at random times and IPs, and the HD that contains the stuff I share has a big electromagnet under it with a panic button, and is stored behind a door with a magnetic field generator.
That said, this is exactly what the MPAA should be doing. Not attacking the enablers, but attacking the actual movie fans themselves.
USian Pie
A long, long time ago
I can still remember
How the trollers used to make me smile
And I knew if I had to boast
That I could try to get first post
And maybe I'd be happy for a while
But moderators made me shiver
With every minus they'd deliver
DoS scripts couldn't stop it
They scored them all "Offtopic"
I know that it's cheap crack they smoke
And meta-moderation's broke
At first I thought it was a joke
The day that trolltalk died
-- Chorus --
Bye, bye, MEEPTy, OOG, and Grits guy
Drove the Cruiser like some loser who starts posts with a *sigh*
Those Steve Woston posts that we all knew were a lie
Wonder what became of girls petrified?
What became of girls petrified?
--
Did you write a bunch of Perl?
And did it make you want to hurl
Feces at the Wall?
Can you believe these lame-ass polls?
Do you post big stretched-out assholes?
Can you make the goatse.cx link not show?
Well I know you think that Siggy sucked
Will the real Bruce Perens please stand up?
The bots don't have a clue.
Man, I dig those trolls from Shoe!
I was a rabid Free Speech advocate
With a Red Hat T-shirt and a Free Beer gut
Bought my Sony laptop working Pizza Hut
The day that trolltalk died
-- Chorus --
It's been two years since the IPO
And LNUX sinks to all-time lows
But that's not how it used to be
When Spiral showed how it was done
Trolling as Jon Erikson
Who worked for NPO Technologies
Oh and while they tried to filter posts
Somebody rooted Slashdot's host
"Crack Slashdot? That's absurd!"
Better go change your password
While JonKatz wrote a Hellmouth book
By using posts he simply took
And we flamed him till he was cooked
The day that trolltalk died
And we were singin....
-- Chorus --
10 grams. Inchfan. Didn't log out. Goddamn
The mods will find the sid real soon, man
You can't hide if you aren't AC
Your bud (George here) tried BSD
A dead Streetlawyer's tips were free
And WIPO helped letsriot turn Nazi
70 made his percents up
While 80md warned "liberals suck"
The moon does not exist
It's just a liberal myth
Oh and as Taco tried to take a nap
We forced him to invoke bitchslaps
Do you recall the flood of crap
The day that trolltalk died?
We started singin....
-- Chorus --
Oh and then we were wearing out "All your base"
And started posting monospace
The better for our penis birds
So come on, be a zealot, be a dick
You don't think Anne Marie's a chick?
Because lying's all we do about HURD
So go and push for BSD
And say GPL isn't free
Slow down, cowboy! The limit
Is one post every minute
Now tell the right wing facist slime
Infringing on Your Rights Online
That they can't censor all the time
The day that trolltalk died
-- Chorus --
I met a troll they called The Rev
And asked him if CD BREAK HEAD
He said, "That's old. Get over it."
And with all the courage I could muster
"Imagine what a Beowulf cluster...."
But it wasn't worth the trouble to submit
The karma caps are just plain jive
And everyone's moved to K5
The steelcage has grown rusted
And Geekizoid is busted
The three sites I don't see for weeks
Segfault, kernel, Comp-u-geek
Code is not art. This ain't Freshmeat
The day that trolltalk died
-- Chorus --