Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the the-value-of-non-interoperability dept.
Faceprint writes: "The developers of gaim have posted another article about the blocking of Jabber and gaim by AOL. It answers a lot of questions that repeatedly get asked on slashdot, and explains the situation rather well. Definitely worth a read."
Re:AOL owns the servers and finances their operati
by
Xofer+D
·
· Score: 2
The Messenger said:
If you want your own special little Open Source chat network, buy your own damn servers and pay for your own damn bandwidth
That's what Jabber does - they have their own servers (Jabber servers) and the server guys pay for their own bandwidth. The AOL servers are only used to talk to... AOL Clients!
AOL can do whatever they like with their servers, it's true. No amount of crying on 'our' part that "we have no choice, we can't get entire relationship networks to change" will do anything about that. However, it's not fair for AOL to say that the users on their system can't talk to users of other systems (Jabber, for example). Note that they can still do it, but it's not the Right Thing. I know full well that this means nothing to AOL, but I'm pretty sure it means a lot to most of the readers here. Who knows, it may be not only morally correct, but legally correct too.
I think arguing about this is not really the way to deal with the issue, though. Let's look at this from a different perspective (bear with me):
If AIM's management keeps playing tricks, then we can't link AIM to other systems (Jabber is a way to do this, even if GAIM isn't). Let's say other messenger services don't pull these tricks, so they get tied together. Now these messenger services have an incentive to use them instead of AIM - the effective increase in the reachable user base. If this is big enough, then people will join up because they will want to talk to their friends. Eventually, people will leave AIM because more of their friends use the other system.
There are other benefits to this, too; once you can change IM clients without losing all your contacts, you can use the one that annoys you the least and/or provides you with your most desired features, even just picking from "approved" clients! Suddenly, there is competition within the linked IM market (as opposed to the isolate IM market, like AIM will be in) based on something other than user base size (ie, how many of your buddies use it). There will be market pressure to keep ads and other cruft off the clients! Pressure for working features, and robustness, and maybe even decent dedicated proxies for firewalls! Currently, once you have a contact network set up on a system, the owners of that system have you in a headlock much like phone companies would if you could only phone people on that company. Since you can change phone companies (at least for long distance) there's fierce competition in that market. This isn't really any different.
-- The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
Why shouldn't AOL bitch about this, in any form they choose, when they're paying for bandwith, etc.
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
Really, let's just move on. Instant messaging should be free and open like HTTP and E-mail. Just because some corporations made some closed IM server/clients first does not mean that there is no hope.
Sure instant messaging should be free, and in essence it is. Facts remain in this case, Jabber is using resources from AOL who doesn't want them to.
Facts:
AOL pays for their servers
AOL pays for their bandwidth
AOL has not authorized anyone to use their services
Jabber is outstanding as an IM protocol
Clients like Jabber take away from AOL's revenue
Jabber has the right notion so what's so hard about them going the same route as AOL, by throwing up hundreds of servers and assess their OWN users without having to fsck with AOL?
Personally at this point I think they're just trolling for attention on a David versus Goliath basis. They can set up their own shit without dealing with AOL entirely.
Do as SameTime Does, and License It
by
scotpurl
·
· Score: 3
Lotus's product, SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) legally connects to AIM servers because Lotus paid a licensing fee to AOL to allow it to happen. So far they've licensed just the chat module (no file transfer), but it's a start.
GAIM and Jabber could do the same. Free, unless you want to connect to an AIM server, then it's $5/year, or something like that. Then connections are legal, and the GAIM and Jabber teams don't have to spend time re-reverse engineering things every time AOL makes a change.
Same comments again and again
by
flynn_nrg
·
· Score: 3
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
While software can be free (beer) hardware seldom is. Someone has to pay for it, and in this case is the ads in the AIM client. Now imagine: AOL says, ok go and write an open source client. Someone makes it and puts de ad routine in the code, e.g. show_ad_banner();
Nothing can stop me from nuking that code away and remove the banner in the client.
On the other hand you may argue that the number of linux/bsd users compared to Windows users is really small, so AOL might well allow linux/bsd users in their servers. If you ask me I don't think ther resource drain is that big, but as I said before AOL has no obligation at all to provide a service for free. They could allow it if you were inside their network, but how many unix users connect to the net with AOL? Guess not many.
To finish, a quote from the article: "It's not the resources that are the issue; and if it were, TOC would be blocked out"
I don't agree, maybe they want someone using and old client to be able to still use the service.
Just my 2c
Re:Same comments again and again
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
Nobody does, but the smart companies are playing nice. We have long memories, and it will take AOL far longer to rebuild their reputation than it is currently taking to destroy it.
Given a choice, do we:
(a) create messaging systems that interoperate seamlessly with AOL's
(b) rebuild the whole network presence infrastructure from the bottom up, get our own open protocols in place, lean on every ISP to run our servers, and turn AOL's messaging system into a second-class citizen
tough decision huh? --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Same comments again and again
by
SurfsUp
·
· Score: 2
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise.
Interesting remark. No, I think every time this comes up we get more PO'd and more motivated to do something about it. OK, here's an idea: how do we hit AOL where it hurts? Lets route their traffic for them. We write routers that run on the client machines (yes, somebody has to put on their toxic waste suit and write some Windows code) and these routers put the normal ICQ/AIM OSCAR traffic through our own P2P network of servers. We write it so it's more reliable and provides smoother connectivity than AOL's servers (should not be hard) and in return for our network carrying their traffic, the user lets us use their client as a proxy for doing things like searching AOL's user list. We could, for example, shadow AOL's entire user base on a global P2P network, and I bet we could cut average search times down to the sub-second level.
What happens next is pretty obvious isn't it? AOL has to start worrying about *us* pulling the plug. --
-- Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Same comments again and again
by
metis
·
· Score: 2
If the OSS community don't want to play nice with AOL and acknowledges AOLs right to not play nice with the OSS community, why is it that everyone screaming when AOL blocks another client?
Non Sequitor, you have a right to vote for Bush and I have a right to scream that you're an idiot, and you have the right to scream back. How is all this relevant?
OSS developers want to co-operate with AOL. They have a right to scream that AOL is playing dirty. They even have the right to complain to the anti-trust division of the DOJ. AOL has the right to not co-operate ( until a judge says othewise ). AOL has the right to scream that OSS developers are playing dirty. And OSS developers have the right to deafeat AOL obstruction of inter-operability( until a judge says otherwise).
Satisfied that everybody got their rights?
-- --
look, cheese ahoy!
did you think that post through?
by
deran9ed
·
· Score: 2
Would you use a phone company that didnt allow you to speak to the majority of other phone users while other companies did?
Its not a matter of whether I would choose that phone company (which the answer is no) rephrased you should have asked is it smart for that phone company to partake a policy of "our service only"
Many will post about little tidbits here and there, and no one can legitimately give a fruitful answer to facts. Sure we could all throw in suggestions, thoughts, etc., but no one seems to want to post a fact in relevance to this story.
So again I reiterate this notion, at this point I truly feel that Jabber, Gaim, are both trolling and trying to gain popularity by concocting a David (Jabber/Gaim) versus Goliath (AOL) based story.
Does your 486 already contain the AOL server code, or will I need to download that from somewhere? If so, from where?
Oh, I can't download it? Thought so.
you're really empty between the ears
by
deran9ed
·
· Score: 2
If I started a phone company, other companies would be required to allow me to connect to their systems and would not be suprised by my desire to do so. This makes the phone system more useful than having a bunch of separate systems.
Utility companies are regulated, and since now your comparing apples with oranges anyway so I'll skip the whole rambling.
My point about whether you would choose a phone company that "closed its doors" was simply to illustate that such a company would not be viable in the long term.
Again your missing the meat and potatoes of this all. AOL's IM was created for their own personal use, there is no one in this world that can force them to allow others to intermix with their own private property (their servers, their databases, their bandwidth)
Secondly unless you _still_ haven't gotten the issues straight. Now since you continued with an assinine telco example here goes... IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I WOULD CHOOSE (I wouldn't choose a phone company that solely used themselves and no one else) REGARDING THIS ISSUE. AOL HAS MADE THEIR POLICY AND IT IS STICKING TO IT, REGARDLESS IF IT SUITS ANYONE.
Which part of that did you not register?
Aside from that:
According to the FCC conditions, AOL only needs to open AIM to at least one would-be competitor if they add "advanced, IM-based high speed services", specifically, video conferencing. Until they add
video conferencing, they are allowed to keep it as closed as they want.
They don't have to open anything, and to close this up one last time. As you state "using x or y company for yadda yadda", well the solution is to simply find another "telco" now isn't it? Which means if AOL is so rotten, incompatible, you know what? No one is forcing anyone to use, let Jabber, Gaim, Faim, whatever make their own servers and stop bitching
Re:you're really empty between the ears
by
Genom
·
· Score: 2
AOL's IM was created for their own personal use, there is no one in this world that can force them to allow others to intermix with their own private property (their servers, their databases, their bandwidth)
This is, of course, true. BUT there are a couple of points that you are missing.
AOL does allow access to their "private property" - through the TOC protocol, which is arguably MORE resource intensive than Oscar, due to it's nature.
The "official" AIM client for linux doesn't display any banners (I've used the Windows one sparingly, and only ever saw ads for AOL itself there - maybe they've changed since then) - so they're not making any money off ads being shown to linux users of their "official" client.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I WOULD CHOOSE (I wouldn't choose a phone company that solely used themselves and no one else) REGARDING THIS ISSUE. AOL HAS MADE THEIR POLICY AND IT IS STICKING TO IT, REGARDLESS IF IT SUITS ANYONE.
Again, true, but it is extremely poor business practice to ignore the preferences of your clients. While it is entirely within AOL's rights to run a closed-doors IM service (until such time as they add videoconferencing, re: the FTC AOL/TW agreement, blah, blah blah) , it's extremely poor foresight for them to do this.
Eventually (maybe not within 5 years, but certainly within 20) I think IM will be a service quite similar to today's telco system. Multiple providers inter-operating to provide communications. Noone's forcing this to happen - but I think it will. If AOL doesn't change their tune before then, they will *probably* be left out in the cold, as far as IM goes.
The sick thing is that even if they remain a closed-doors IM during that time, if they do open it up, they'll probably become dominant (or at least a key player) simply due to their size and focus (on giving their particular flavor of access to the clueless who don't know any better).
As you state "using x or y company for yadda yadda", well the solution is to simply find another "telco" now isn't it? Which means if AOL is so rotten, incompatible, you know what? No one is forcing anyone to use, let Jabber, Gaim, Faim, whatever make their own servers and stop bitching
Agreed that there is noone forcing anyone to use AIM (well, other than AOL themselves, if you use them for a provider -- MS is nearly as bad by "integrating" MSN Messenger with OE in WinMe/WinXP -- removing the "choice" as to whether or not to run a given IM program). BUT - in order to talk to a clueless friend/relative who uses AOL and doesn't have the expertise to install another client (or is too stubborn/thickheaded/clueless to see that there is a whole world outside of AOL's blinders) you don't have much choice BUT to use an AIM client (for IM -- phone is always an option - email less so due to the large ammount of spam on AOL). This is what AOL counts on, as far as a force to drive users to use THEIR IM over someone else's -- "all your clueless relatives are belong to AOL".
Re:you're really empty between the ears
by
baptiste
·
· Score: 3
Utility companies are regulated, and since now your comparing apples with oranges anyway so I'll skip the whole rambling.
It IS a valid analogy? Why? Utility companies were regulated because they are... monopolies. Not 100% monopolies, but enough to require regulation.
Now AOL has a VERY sizable chunk of the IM market between AOL, ICQ, etc. They are trying to force people to use their stuff and only their stuff (remember when you had to rent a phone from Ma Bell?) So many people use IM, that AOls insistence in locking down their network is a) a disservice to their users and b) excludes other users who frely choose to use other services.
Normally you'd say - that's business and hte most popular devices wins (think VHS) But in this case you have a company who is flexing its muscle to rule the Internet.
Remember how CNN, TIme Managzine and others always had live chats via their websites with various folks? Notice how those chats are now exclusively on AOL? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this, but it really does exclude many people. I've read TIME maagzine for decades - but I'll never get an AOL account just to use their exclusive online services! Scary part is I'm sure many other people will.
Despite Toc's "shortcomings" (none important that I can see), it works, and AOL has provided it for everybody to connect to *THEIR* servers.
What is the problem here? I can use everybuddy just fine to talk to people I need to talk to. That's what IM is for. What else do you need?
If you don't like that TOC doesn't do what you want, then don't use AOL servers. Force your friends to use IRC. Run your own IRC server. Just stop Whining!
I understand it entirely... Maybe I conveyed it wrongly but its pretty much the same thing I'm trying to state. Oh well I need sleep (up since 2am SATURDAY!!);)
I agree with your point entirely, which is why I stated that I felt Gaim people were trolling... If AOL doesn't wanna open up shop, fuck em, move on and do your own thing, they have the capabilities so there should be no "issues" for them to bitch about. (yet they do... riding the AOL bandwagon at this point.)
I think the bottom line is, be glad we have what we have, they could have given us nothing. If you really think AOL and AIM sucks, why not switch to Jabber or something else... you don't HAVE to use AIM.
Did someone confuse linus torvald with the dalai lama? Why on earth should we be glad with what we have? We owe AOL nothing. It is a public company, and all its decisions are based on maximizing profits. Whatever they gave us, they did it because it payed them to do so. Open source developer can do everything legal in their country to get access to AOL customers. If you don't like it, complain at a local police station near you.
-- --
look, cheese ahoy!
Re:One small problem with the article
by
wowbagger
·
· Score: 2
Well, to embrace and extend the analogy you made in your article:
<Devil's Advocate>
What AOL did was to create a spa, and unlock their back door (TOC), and allow the neighborhood kids in to use the bathroom, the phone, and maybe get a little sugarwater to drink. The front door (OSCAR) was for paying guests.
You argue that, since they've left the back door open, you ought to be allowed to use the front door, the microwave, and the bigscreen TV as well.
Now, AOL's stopped putting sugarwater out, they've turned off the phone, and once in a while the toilet won't flush. They are focusing on the paying guests to the detriment of the neighborhood kids. You argue that this merely increases your right to use the front door.
</Devil's Advocate>
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here: I dislike what AOL is doing, and I'm just trying to make sure that your arguements for them allowing OSCAR access to all are as sound as possible. The arguement you made in your article, to me, seems a little shaky, and I just wish to help strengthen it.
<Op-ed>
I dislike AOL's tactics. Like many other companies, they have managed to create a monopoly de facto if not de jure, and are moving to extend it. This is really dumb on their part: making IM work for all increases the value of their network under Metcalfe's law, as well as making them less likely to attract the DOJ's attention.
</Op-ed>
I guess they feel the DOJ is a toothless tiger...
No one on a different phone company could talk to a person on another phone company's system.
Then the FCC stepped in and created standards, and mandated interconnection.
No they didn't. AT&T was established as a regulated monopoly. There could have been an FCC mandated interoperability but there was not and we got the monopoly instead.
--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I started a phone company, and did allow other phone companies to route phone calls to my system, but didn't allow regular phones to talk to our new custom holographic 3-d videoconferencing system.
And the routing from other providers introduces (unpleasant but bearable) lags in the conversation. And this routing often goes down for days at a time. I would not want to use such a service.
So lets see, TOC can't retrive away messages, file transfers, buddy icons, direct IM, voice chat, etc. So in reverse order:
Voice chat: is a pain in the ass anyway. Try playing with H323 with NAT. Thankfully there's Roger Wilco.
Direct IM: Ok, this is major. But when you use jabber, all your AOL, ICQ, MSN messages pass through your Jabber server anyway.
buddy icons: I don't need the blinky icons, in most cases they're just bottled self expression anyway. I know a few users who have created their own however.
file transfers: I haven't sent or recived a file through any IM client for a long time. See e-mail, ftp, http, and scp...
away message: Oh, so I can't tell why my friend isn't at their machine. Oh well. Would be nice.
Overall, I don't feel like I'm missing anything if I have to use TOC instead of Oscar. But that's just me.
-- I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Re:AOL owns the servers and finances their operati
by
shepd
·
· Score: 2
>and since OSS doesn't make any money, you'll be paying for it out of your own pocket.
And neither does Closed Source if we go by your Yahoo tells all link.
-- If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:AOL owns the servers and finances their operati
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2
I don't believe this is about ad revenues at all. AOL makes money off its subscribers. AIM is a service to those people, which if it's going to be of any value is going to need to allow non-subscribers to use it as well. The volume of non-subscribers who use AIM at any level is probably not a large consideration. I seriously doubt their ad rates add much to their revenues as far as AIM goes. Yes, they may well be discouraging the use of non-AOL OSCAR clients, but I'd guess that's for technical and/or bandwidth reasons moreso than some huge financial concern. Heck, the added developer time and other human resource costs are probably quite a bit more than any internet advertising can bring in. Actually, if they can get middle of the road MSN or Qwest or other large ISP subscribers to use their official client and see how nice it is, they may be able to more easily convince people to switch to AOL.
I read the article, he claims that GAIM has a right to connect to AOL servers because AOL released something called TOC.
But then he says TOC doesn't work anyway, at least not well.
Maybe AOL isn't worried about trying to block TOC because they realize nobody is bothering to use it?
That has got to be one of the strangest justification articles I've seen in a long time. I can't help thinking "Buddy, get a hair cut and get a real job.":)
His opening argument, about how AOL giving away TOC negates any argument about third-party clients having no right to use the system, is invalid. It's like arguing that because the bank allows you access to the money in the vault via a teller, you have the right to go in the vault and muck around as you like. Hey, it's less resource intensive, because they don't need this proxy (teller) to service your requests, right?
The fact of the matter is that the general public starts off with absolutely ZERO rights to use AOL's servers. AOL then allows specific forms of access. If they only want to allow certain people certain types of access (via TOC versus OSCAR), it's well within their rights. As much as you would like to think it is, instant messaging is NOT a public accommodation.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Sorry, I misspoke. When I said "it does not give you any sort of right to use the servers" I meant that it doesn't give you any right to use the servers outside of the TOC protocol. Based on my previous statements, this could be assumed, but it's worth clarifying what I said.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
I did read in context. It still sounds like you're justifying using OSCAR by the fact that they gave away TOC. You'd like to sit here and say "Oh, we're doing them a *favor* by using the less resource-laden protocol. They should be thanking us!". You know what? Let AOL worry about their own resource issues. They've got a lot of people paid to worry about it on a daily basis, and they do a pretty good job of managing it.
And if I'm wrong, then exactly how do you justify using OSCAR when you yourself agree that you have no right to use the OSCAR servers? And remember, resources aren't an argument. You said that yourself.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Absolutely. Go ahead and use it if they leave it open to everyone. That's really not my point. My main point in all of this is that everyone (not claiming it was neccesasarily you) should stop bitching every time AOL changes the protocol or the checksum and blocks everyone.
Yes, by the fact that the server is semi-public you probably do have some rights to access it. But if they go and change the access mechanism, all of a sudden everyone starts shouting "Oh, this isn't fair!" You know what? Deal with it. You can either figure out the new mechanism quietly and "fix" your client, or switch to TOC. But I'll repeat it again (not for your benefit, but everyone else's): instant messaging is not a public accommodation.
Now, I do give you credit for coming out and trying to answer some of the questions. However, I think you could reword it and be a little clearer as to what you believe your rights to use the system are. You've cleared things up a little in this thread already. Unfortunately, I doubt it will have a serious impact on the community. We're still gonna get everyone shouting that AOL isn't playing fair they shouldn't be allowed to change their access mechanisms on OSCAR.
On the topic of reverse engineering, I really don't want to get into it either. However, I will say that you may get into trouble if you go the route of a "checksum server". I'm definitely no expert, but it seems that cleanroom solutions to something like this tend to be accepted, while doing a checksum server that bases itself around the AIM binary may bring up some problems between AOL and you guys based on the DMCA. Regardless of whether the legal challenge is valid or not, or even if the DMCA is good or bad, I would guess that you probably don't have the resources to fight AOL in court, and even if you did you might not want to. It's just something else to consider.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Me: instant messaging is not a public accommodation
You: No, but it should be:) Enter Jabber.
I really don't think it should be. As you as you get to something like that, you end up having government regulation and problems like we see with the Bells and even the power providers.
Open and accessible, yes. Public accommodation? No... it just carries too many negative aspects. But that's just my opinion.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
In reference to instant messaging being a public accomodation you say:
I really don't think it should be. As you as you get to something like that, you end up having government regulation and problems like we see with the Bells and even the power providers.
Why do you think that? Email is a public accomodation. Ok, so email isn't the same thing as power and phone service. But in the scope of the internet, why shouldn't IM be as public as email? There don't appear to be any government regulation problems with email.
Personally, I think that jabber will eventually win the day rendering the discussion moot. I remember when I was sending email on a WANG VS system. This system was so foreign to SMTP, that I think it prohibited the use of S, M, T, or P in any email. It was as proprietary as they come. But no one uses it now. Not because it wasn't popular at the time. It was very popular. But an open standard (meaning anyone was allowed to implement it) was just more attractive. It allowed everyone to be able to communicate to everyone else. It was proprietary and had a ton more features, but it lost because it had a self imposed limitation on how much it could grow.
I think (hope?) that eventually Jabber will do the same.
-- Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
Sounds like AOL started using the DUL on their incoming mail servers. I really can't say I blame them. I use the DUL on my servers, basically because a good bit of spam these days is done via Direct-to-MX (ie. spammer dials up and uses a proggie to send mail directly from their computer to their victim's mail server). Blocking dialups is a quick way to deal with this problem that doesn't block too much legitimate mail.
There's always a tradeoff when you use a list like this for blocking spam. Obviously AOL decided that the spam that would be blocked outweighed the legit mail that would be blocked. And I'm fairly certain that it was a very small percent of legit mail, because I know firsthand the process that this type of decision would have had to go through before being implemented. However, I really don't think it makes them a bad Internet citizen. It's a business decision, plain and simple.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Yeah, I agree that it's funny. But I think that the underlying truth is that AOL could do this, and they'd be well within their rights. Sure, it would be a stupid decision. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do it.
Fact of the matter is, if they did it, AOL customers would have to decide if it was important enough to them to cause them to cancel their account or not. Same as the decision that AIM users have to make now... is it important enough to you that AOL isn't working towards an open system, and that they don't interoperate with other IM systems? If it is, then stop using AIM, and try to convince your friends to use something else as well.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
No, I mean their Instant messaging server (you know, "Instant Messaging", as mentioned in the article).
AOLserver does not do that, it is just a web server!
> Now please shut the fuck up already and stop posting your bullshit with a +1 bonus.
Now please read the article, and stop recommending products which don't address the problem at hand.
Distributing a binary that's a plug-in that provides licensed AIM support is what comes to mind right away. They hit a menu, the program asks for a credit card number, the plug-in is downloaded and installed in the correct location, and licensed AIM support is off and running. You could probably even compile in, realtime, the AIM name of the user that the plug-in was meant for. Then the plug-in can be shifted between multiple computers, but pirated less easily. (Note I didn't say it couldn't be pirated.)
My real point is, I think that the open-source brain trust is better used for creation and innovation, rather than licensing circumvention.:-)
Why CNN and Time websites need AOL for chat
by
Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr.
·
· Score: 2
Remember how CNN, TIme Managzine and others always had live chats via their websites with various folks? Notice how those chats are now exclusively on AOL?
Likely has something to do with AOL and Time Warner having merged. Time Warner owned (among other things) CNN and Time. Now AOL-Time Warner owns AOL, CNN, and Time, and a whole lot more.
-- Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
A monopoly of what, the information feed available to the 25 million idiots willing to pay for their hanging gardens. That's like saying my landlord has a monopoly on the living arrangements of the forty people living in my building. Snap out of it.
And another goddam thing, IM cannot survive without the self-same idiots? Cannot we consider this a Darwinian moment? Call it one of those periodic, catastrophic cleansings of the icology. If you're on AOL, your contribution to the icosystem is almost certainly negligible. You are the weakest link.
-- illegitimii non ingravare
Re:Ad enabled windows Client?
by
SealBeater
·
· Score: 2
Look for a program called DeadAim. It replaces the AIM binary, works fine and removes all the banner ads. You can find it here
SealBeater
-- --
Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
You know,
Back when AOL first created TiK and the TOC protocol, they published the specifications. You could even download them from their website. It wasn't until the whole MSN ordeal that they took them down. Now, if AOL didn't want us to use TOC why would they provide it to us? And why would certain people there have told me it was ok? Very interesting.. hmmm:)
The issue is not whether or not AOL actually has to pay for extra bandwidth or servers. I'm sure that AOL/Timewarner could add servers/bandwidth at will and have it be a blip on their bottom line.
The issue is that AOL gets to do whatever it wants with it's own bandwidth. That means that when they released the TOC protocol and provided servers for it, all they did was imply that it is ok to use the TOC protocol. This has NO bearing on the oscar protocol or servers. Even if it doesn't actually cost AOL an extra nickel for people to use oscar servers, it is still AOL's bandwidth to use (or not) as they see fit.
The author of this article made a ridiculous statement that TOC is not an acceptable substitute for access because you can't get buddy icons or files. Since when are buddy icons a necessity for instant messenging? I have been using various toc clients for a long time and I never even noticed any problems, because I can freely chat with all of my friends.
The author also indicates that AOL never (intentionally) tried to shut down 3rd party clients, only 3rd party SERVICES (like the msn/yahoo SERVERS) from accessing their systems. I have no problems with this strategy, nowhere is it written that you have to give your competitors access to any of your computing resources. Even if such access is "free of cost."
Re:A new spin. WAS Re:Same comments again and agai
by
metis
·
· Score: 2
No it's called theft of service
No it isn't called that way. Just because you call it that way doesn't make it so. I call it providing interoperability, now what? There is no settled law in this area. And only a court can call an unprecedent event theft. As long as it is not settled law, developers can do what they believe bona fide to be right. So please, if you think it is theft, call the police.
No it wasn't. AT&T was the direct descendant of the Bell system. Bell was *the* phone company for decades.
If you are going to be pedantic, at least get it right before you correct others. According to the oficial history of American Telegraph and Telephone:
AT&T's roots stretch back to 1875 with founder Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. During the 19th century, AT&T became the parent company of the Bell System, the American telephone monopoly.
It is not surprising that people get confused between the Bell System and AT&T since AT&T was the holding company for the Bell system as well as the long distance arm since being founded in 1885.
Besides which the correction was entirely irelevant to the point made.
The United States government accepted the idea that AT&T be a monopoly utility initially in a 1913 agreement known as the Kingsbury Commitment. As part of this agreement, AT&T agreed to connect non-competing independent telephone companies to its network and divest its controlling interest in Western Union telegraph.
The key phrase being 'non competing'. That in effect meant that the vast majority of operators were frozen out since they were 'competing' against Bell system companies. If the Bell system offered a customer service there was no obligation to interconnect a rival telco even if they were already established.
--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
AOL is doing the right thing
by
SpinyNorman
·
· Score: 2
The value of an IM system lies in the size of the customer base. Jabber is largely worthless without the ability to talk to AIM/ICQ users, and equally AOL would be less valuable if they provide the ability for existing users to abandon AIM/ICQ by providing Jabber interopability.
The only incentive for AOL to allow Jabber interop. is going to be if the Jabber parent company (Webb somthing?) is willing to pay for that - and one would expect that the price is going to be VERY high.
He says that AOL has never blocked clients, they're always trying to block servers.
Yet right now at this very moment, I get this:
(09:26:27) AOL Instant Messenger: You have been disconnected from the AOL Instant Message Service (SM) for accessing the AOL network using unauthorized software. You can download a FREE, fully featured, and authorized client, here http://www.aol.com/aim/download2.html.
It doesn't say "for using an unauthorized server", and it's telling me to download a different client.
I find it difficult to believe that it's only doing this to me. It seems more likely that it's doing it to everyone.
This, BTW, is with a GAIM RPM I downloaded from the main project page about a hour ago.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what Jabber does - they have their own servers (Jabber servers) and the server guys pay for their own bandwidth. The AOL servers are only used to talk to... AOL Clients!
AOL can do whatever they like with their servers, it's true. No amount of crying on 'our' part that "we have no choice, we can't get entire relationship networks to change" will do anything about that. However, it's not fair for AOL to say that the users on their system can't talk to users of other systems (Jabber, for example). Note that they can still do it, but it's not the Right Thing. I know full well that this means nothing to AOL, but I'm pretty sure it means a lot to most of the readers here. Who knows, it may be not only morally correct, but legally correct too.
I think arguing about this is not really the way to deal with the issue, though. Let's look at this from a different perspective (bear with me):
If AIM's management keeps playing tricks, then we can't link AIM to other systems (Jabber is a way to do this, even if GAIM isn't). Let's say other messenger services don't pull these tricks, so they get tied together. Now these messenger services have an incentive to use them instead of AIM - the effective increase in the reachable user base. If this is big enough, then people will join up because they will want to talk to their friends. Eventually, people will leave AIM because more of their friends use the other system.
There are other benefits to this, too; once you can change IM clients without losing all your contacts, you can use the one that annoys you the least and/or provides you with your most desired features, even just picking from "approved" clients! Suddenly, there is competition within the linked IM market (as opposed to the isolate IM market, like AIM will be in) based on something other than user base size (ie, how many of your buddies use it). There will be market pressure to keep ads and other cruft off the clients! Pressure for working features, and robustness, and maybe even decent dedicated proxies for firewalls! Currently, once you have a contact network set up on a system, the owners of that system have you in a headlock much like phone companies would if you could only phone people on that company. Since you can change phone companies (at least for long distance) there's fierce competition in that market. This isn't really any different.
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action ... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
Of course, no two-year-old wants to take a bath.
Sure instant messaging should be free, and in essence it is. Facts remain in this case, Jabber is using resources from AOL who doesn't want them to.
Facts:
AOL pays for their servers
AOL pays for their bandwidth
AOL has not authorized anyone to use their services
Jabber is outstanding as an IM protocol
Clients like Jabber take away from AOL's revenue
Jabber has the right notion so what's so hard about them going the same route as AOL, by throwing up hundreds of servers and assess their OWN users without having to fsck with AOL?
Personally at this point I think they're just trolling for attention on a David versus Goliath basis. They can set up their own shit without dealing with AOL entirely.
360 degrees of Karma
Lotus's product, SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) legally connects to AIM servers because Lotus paid a licensing fee to AOL to allow it to happen. So far they've licensed just the chat module (no file transfer), but it's a start.
GAIM and Jabber could do the same. Free, unless you want to connect to an AIM server, then it's $5/year, or something like that. Then connections are legal, and the GAIM and Jabber teams don't have to spend time re-reverse engineering things every time AOL makes a change.
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
While software can be free (beer) hardware seldom is. Someone has to pay for it, and in this case is the ads in the AIM client. Now imagine: AOL says, ok go and write an open source client. Someone makes it and puts de ad routine in the code, e.g. show_ad_banner();
Nothing can stop me from nuking that code away and remove the banner in the client.
On the other hand you may argue that the number of linux/bsd users compared to Windows users is really small, so AOL might well allow linux/bsd users in their servers. If you ask me I don't think ther resource drain is that big, but as I said before AOL has no obligation at all to provide a service for free. They could allow it if you were inside their network, but how many unix users connect to the net with AOL? Guess not many.
To finish, a quote from the article: "It's not the resources that are the issue; and if it were, TOC would be blocked out"
I don't agree, maybe they want someone using and old client to be able to still use the service.
Just my 2c
Would you use a phone company that didnt allow you to speak to the majority of other phone users while other companies did?
Its not a matter of whether I would choose that phone company (which the answer is no) rephrased you should have asked is it smart for that phone company to partake a policy of "our service only"
Many will post about little tidbits here and there, and no one can legitimately give a fruitful answer to facts. Sure we could all throw in suggestions, thoughts, etc., but no one seems to want to post a fact in relevance to this story.
So again I reiterate this notion, at this point I truly feel that Jabber, Gaim, are both trolling and trying to gain popularity by concocting a David (Jabber/Gaim) versus Goliath (AOL) based story.
360 degrees of Karma
Oh, I can't download it? Thought so.
Utility companies are regulated, and since now your comparing apples with oranges anyway so I'll skip the whole rambling.
My point about whether you would choose a phone company that "closed its doors" was simply to illustate that such a company would not be viable in the long term.
Again your missing the meat and potatoes of this all. AOL's IM was created for their own personal use, there is no one in this world that can force them to allow others to intermix with their own private property (their servers, their databases, their bandwidth)
Secondly unless you _still_ haven't gotten the issues straight. Now since you continued with an assinine telco example here goes... IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I WOULD CHOOSE (I wouldn't choose a phone company that solely used themselves and no one else) REGARDING THIS ISSUE. AOL HAS MADE THEIR POLICY AND IT IS STICKING TO IT, REGARDLESS IF IT SUITS ANYONE.
Which part of that did you not register?
Aside from that: They don't have to open anything, and to close this up one last time. As you state "using x or y company for yadda yadda", well the solution is to simply find another "telco" now isn't it? Which means if AOL is so rotten, incompatible, you know what? No one is forcing anyone to use, let Jabber, Gaim, Faim, whatever make their own servers and stop bitching
360 degrees of Karma
What is the problem here? I can use everybuddy just fine to talk to people I need to talk to. That's what IM is for. What else do you need?
If you don't like that TOC doesn't do what you want, then don't use AOL servers. Force your friends to use IRC. Run your own IRC server. Just stop Whining!
I understand it entirely... Maybe I conveyed it wrongly but its pretty much the same thing I'm trying to state. Oh well I need sleep (up since 2am SATURDAY!!) ;)
I agree with your point entirely, which is why I stated that I felt Gaim people were trolling... If AOL doesn't wanna open up shop, fuck em, move on and do your own thing, they have the capabilities so there should be no "issues" for them to bitch about. (yet they do... riding the AOL bandwagon at this point.)
360 degrees of Karma
I think the bottom line is, be glad we have what we have, they could have given us nothing. If you really think AOL and AIM sucks, why not switch to Jabber or something else... you don't HAVE to use AIM.
Did someone confuse linus torvald with the dalai lama? Why on earth should we be glad with what we have? We owe AOL nothing. It is a public company, and all its decisions are based on maximizing profits. Whatever they gave us, they did it because it payed them to do so. Open source developer can do everything legal in their country to get access to AOL customers. If you don't like it, complain at a local police station near you.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Well, to embrace and extend the analogy you made in your article:
<Devil's Advocate>
What AOL did was to create a spa, and unlock their back door (TOC), and allow the neighborhood kids in to use the bathroom, the phone, and maybe get a little sugarwater to drink. The front door (OSCAR) was for paying guests.
You argue that, since they've left the back door open, you ought to be allowed to use the front door, the microwave, and the bigscreen TV as well.
Now, AOL's stopped putting sugarwater out, they've turned off the phone, and once in a while the toilet won't flush. They are focusing on the paying guests to the detriment of the neighborhood kids. You argue that this merely increases your right to use the front door.
</Devil's Advocate>
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here: I dislike what AOL is doing, and I'm just trying to make sure that your arguements for them allowing OSCAR access to all are as sound as possible. The arguement you made in your article, to me, seems a little shaky, and I just wish to help strengthen it.
<Op-ed>
I dislike AOL's tactics. Like many other companies, they have managed to create a monopoly de facto if not de jure, and are moving to extend it. This is really dumb on their part: making IM work for all increases the value of their network under Metcalfe's law, as well as making them less likely to attract the DOJ's attention.
</Op-ed>
I guess they feel the DOJ is a toothless tiger...
www.eFax.com are spammers
No they didn't. AT&T was established as a regulated monopoly. There could have been an FCC mandated interoperability but there was not and we got the monopoly instead.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I started a phone company, and did allow other phone companies to route phone calls to my system, but didn't allow regular phones to talk to our new custom holographic 3-d videoconferencing system.
And the routing from other providers introduces (unpleasant but bearable) lags in the conversation. And this routing often goes down for days at a time. I would not want to use such a service.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So lets see, TOC can't retrive away messages, file transfers, buddy icons, direct IM, voice chat, etc. So in reverse order:
Voice chat: is a pain in the ass anyway. Try playing with H323 with NAT. Thankfully there's Roger Wilco.
Direct IM: Ok, this is major. But when you use jabber, all your AOL, ICQ, MSN messages pass through your Jabber server anyway.
buddy icons: I don't need the blinky icons, in most cases they're just bottled self expression anyway. I know a few users who have created their own however.
file transfers: I haven't sent or recived a file through any IM client for a long time. See e-mail, ftp, http, and scp...
away message: Oh, so I can't tell why my friend isn't at their machine. Oh well. Would be nice.
Overall, I don't feel like I'm missing anything if I have to use TOC instead of Oscar. But that's just me.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
>and since OSS doesn't make any money, you'll be paying for it out of your own pocket.
And neither does Closed Source if we go by your Yahoo tells all link.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I don't believe this is about ad revenues at all. AOL makes money off its subscribers. AIM is a service to those people, which if it's going to be of any value is going to need to allow non-subscribers to use it as well. The volume of non-subscribers who use AIM at any level is probably not a large consideration. I seriously doubt their ad rates add much to their revenues as far as AIM goes. Yes, they may well be discouraging the use of non-AOL OSCAR clients, but I'd guess that's for technical and/or bandwidth reasons moreso than some huge financial concern. Heck, the added developer time and other human resource costs are probably quite a bit more than any internet advertising can bring in. Actually, if they can get middle of the road MSN or Qwest or other large ISP subscribers to use their official client and see how nice it is, they may be able to more easily convince people to switch to AOL.
I do not have a signature
I read the article, he claims that GAIM has a right to connect to AOL servers because AOL released something called TOC.
:)
But then he says TOC doesn't work anyway, at least not well.
Maybe AOL isn't worried about trying to block TOC because they realize nobody is bothering to use it?
That has got to be one of the strangest justification articles I've seen in a long time. I can't help thinking "Buddy, get a hair cut and get a real job."
His opening argument, about how AOL giving away TOC negates any argument about third-party clients having no right to use the system, is invalid. It's like arguing that because the bank allows you access to the money in the vault via a teller, you have the right to go in the vault and muck around as you like. Hey, it's less resource intensive, because they don't need this proxy (teller) to service your requests, right?
The fact of the matter is that the general public starts off with absolutely ZERO rights to use AOL's servers. AOL then allows specific forms of access. If they only want to allow certain people certain types of access (via TOC versus OSCAR), it's well within their rights. As much as you would like to think it is, instant messaging is NOT a public accommodation.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
From Unauthorized Use
DULLES, VA
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
No, I mean their Instant messaging server (you know, "Instant Messaging", as mentioned in the article). AOLserver does not do that, it is just a web server!
> Now please shut the fuck up already and stop posting your bullshit with a +1 bonus.
Now please read the article, and stop recommending products which don't address the problem at hand.
Distributing a binary that's a plug-in that provides licensed AIM support is what comes to mind right away. They hit a menu, the program asks for a credit card number, the plug-in is downloaded and installed in the correct location, and licensed AIM support is off and running. You could probably even compile in, realtime, the AIM name of the user that the plug-in was meant for. Then the plug-in can be shifted between multiple computers, but pirated less easily. (Note I didn't say it couldn't be pirated.)
:-)
My real point is, I think that the open-source brain trust is better used for creation and innovation, rather than licensing circumvention.
Likely has something to do with AOL and Time Warner having merged. Time Warner owned (among other things) CNN and Time. Now AOL-Time Warner owns AOL, CNN, and Time, and a whole lot more.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
A monopoly of what, the information feed available to the 25 million idiots willing to pay for their hanging gardens. That's like saying my landlord has a monopoly on the living arrangements of the forty people living in my building. Snap out of it.
And another goddam thing, IM cannot survive without the self-same idiots? Cannot we consider this a Darwinian moment? Call it one of those periodic, catastrophic cleansings of the icology. If you're on AOL, your contribution to the icosystem is almost certainly negligible. You are the weakest link.
illegitimii non ingravare
Look for a program called DeadAim. It replaces the AIM binary, works fine and removes all the banner ads. You can find it here
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
You know, Back when AOL first created TiK and the TOC protocol, they published the specifications. You could even download them from their website. It wasn't until the whole MSN ordeal that they took them down. Now, if AOL didn't want us to use TOC why would they provide it to us? And why would certain people there have told me it was ok? Very interesting .. hmmm :)
---
Rob Flynn
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
The issue is that AOL gets to do whatever it wants with it's own bandwidth. That means that when they released the TOC protocol and provided servers for it, all they did was imply that it is ok to use the TOC protocol. This has NO bearing on the oscar protocol or servers. Even if it doesn't actually cost AOL an extra nickel for people to use oscar servers, it is still AOL's bandwidth to use (or not) as they see fit.
The author of this article made a ridiculous statement that TOC is not an acceptable substitute for access because you can't get buddy icons or files. Since when are buddy icons a necessity for instant messenging? I have been using various toc clients for a long time and I never even noticed any problems, because I can freely chat with all of my friends.
The author also indicates that AOL never (intentionally) tried to shut down 3rd party clients, only 3rd party SERVICES (like the msn/yahoo SERVERS) from accessing their systems. I have no problems with this strategy, nowhere is it written that you have to give your competitors access to any of your computing resources. Even if such access is "free of cost."
-- look, cheese ahoy!
If you are going to be pedantic, at least get it right before you correct others. According to the oficial history of American Telegraph and Telephone:
AT&T's roots stretch back to 1875 with founder Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. During the 19th century, AT&T became the parent company of the Bell System, the American telephone monopoly.
It is not surprising that people get confused between the Bell System and AT&T since AT&T was the holding company for the Bell system as well as the long distance arm since being founded in 1885.
Besides which the correction was entirely irelevant to the point made. The United States government accepted the idea that AT&T be a monopoly utility initially in a 1913 agreement known as the Kingsbury Commitment. As part of this agreement, AT&T agreed to connect non-competing independent telephone companies to its network and divest its controlling interest in Western Union telegraph.
The key phrase being 'non competing'. That in effect meant that the vast majority of operators were frozen out since they were 'competing' against Bell system companies. If the Bell system offered a customer service there was no obligation to interconnect a rival telco even if they were already established.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The value of an IM system lies in the size of the customer base. Jabber is largely worthless without the ability to talk to AIM/ICQ users, and equally AOL would be less valuable if they provide the ability for existing users to abandon AIM/ICQ by providing Jabber interopability.
The only incentive for AOL to allow Jabber interop. is going to be if the Jabber parent company (Webb somthing?) is willing to pay for that - and one would expect that the price is going to be VERY high.
He says that AOL has never blocked clients, they're always trying to block servers.
.
Yet right now at this very moment, I get this:
(09:26:27) AOL Instant Messenger: You have been disconnected from the AOL Instant Message Service (SM) for accessing the AOL network using unauthorized software. You can download a FREE, fully featured, and authorized client, here http://www.aol.com/aim/download2.html
It doesn't say "for using an unauthorized server", and it's telling me to download a different client.
I find it difficult to believe that it's only doing this to me. It seems more likely that it's doing it to everyone.
This, BTW, is with a GAIM RPM I downloaded from the main project page about a hour ago.
-