Legal Pundits Pan Internet Exceptionalism

Back in Brown writes: "This article from today's Wall St. Journal (via MSNBC) presents the viewpoints of several legal commentators that the Internet should be treated like any other invention and not subject to novel legal interpretations. 'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.' Another quote: 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'"

Comments

going for a fp

[gibler]

here goes....

Re:going for a fp

[CmdrTaco (troll)]

ah, so close.

Re:going for a fp

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? He got it, you retard.

Re:going for a fp

[gibler]

It must be a good day today. I have got my first post, finally. Woohoo.

I can now stop trolling.

Re:going for a fp

[CmdrTaco (troll)]

you have been the victim of a sinister double troll.

Re:going for a fp

[Anonymous Coward]

And you, my friend, the victim of an even more sinister triple troll!

they missed something!

[edrugtrader]

'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'

they didn't say anything about all the pr0n!

Re:they missed something!

[Anonymous Coward]

yall are absolute retards, shut up.

Re:they missed something!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dickhead, you shut up. You remind me of the guy who walked past me in the street a few hours earlier and shouted "JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP" in my face. I wasn't even saying anything, and I was so taken aback I could not think of a retort.

So, you can consider this post my retort to both him and you:

No, dickhead, you shut up.

Re:they missed something!

[Tackhead]

From the article:

> 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'

As a "cyberbuff", I happen to think lawyers are afflicted with insufficient perspective, disdain for the possibilities of the future, unnecessary clinging to outmoded business models, and technophobia.

(Of course, the reason they're right, and the cyberbuffs are wrong, is because lawyers make the laws, and the laws direct those who have the guns. But what a wonderful world it could have been without them.)

Re:they missed something!

[t3chmonkey]

that was me who screamed at you, and now I'm stunned into silence myself.

Re:they missed something!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, and newspaper reporters have any sense of perspective? He just wants to hype something so his editor will say, "Good story." Sometimes life is a muddled mess of good and bad things, but lord knows you can't print that.

Re:they missed something!

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who screamed at me was a dancing nigger. Are you sure you were that guy?

Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

First naked ladies post!

For everyone!

Re:Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

that gave me an exceptionally large hard-on. If I wasn't in the office I would be furiously masterbating onto my bedsheets by now. I hope my boss doesn't call me over to her desk!!

Re:Not first post

[inode_buddha]

Thx for the link...

Re:Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. I wish you a happy wanking tonight.

Anal Cox's greatest hits: TROLLENPOLKA!

[pwpbot]

THE TROLL POLKA ARSCHFICKEN MIT ZIEGEN By Serial Troller slashdotorg das nicht ein early post Ja Das ist mein early postIs das nicht ein Goatse goatsecx ghost Ja Das ist mein Goatse goatsecx ghostEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas post at minus one Ja Das ist at minus oneIs das trolling so much fun Ja Das trolling is so funMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas nicht ein big crapflood Ja Das ist mein big crapfloodIs it worthless Linux FUD Ja Das ist mein Linux FUDBig crapflood Linux FUDMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas nicht der CowBoiKneel Ja Das ist der CowBoiKneelIs dis nicht his manchode meal Ja Das ist his manchode mealCowBoiKneel manchode mealBig crapflood Linux FUDMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas nicht ein WIPO Troll Ja Das ist der WIPO TrollIs das nicht ein Goatse goatsecx hole Ja Das ist der Goatse goatsecx holeWIPO Troll Goatse goatsecx holeCowBoiKneel manchode mealBig crapflood Linux FUDMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas nicht Jon Katzslave boys Ja Das ist Jon Katzslave boysUnd arenthey Tacosex toys Ja They are Tacosex toysKatzslave boys Robsex toysWIPO Troll Goatse goatsecx holeCowBoiKneel manchode mealBig crapflood Linux FUDMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksdas nicht ein trolltalk thread Ja Das ist ein trolltalk threadIs it nicht now FUCKING DEAD Ja Is really FUCKING DEADTrolltalk thread FUCKING DEADKatzslave boys Robsex toysWIPO Troll Goatse goatsecx holeCowBoiKneel manchode mealBig crapflood Linux FUDMinus one trolling funEarly post Goatse goatsecx ghostOh du schdu schdu schsucksChange Log Subtle changes to most verses It sounded really gay before Removed all references to Tacopud May have been high at time Will investigate furtherFinally think I have goat sex written correctly in German I think Arschficken2002 Serial Troller Permission to reproduce this document is granted provided that you send all the bukkake porn you can find to serialtrollerhotmailcom mailto

Things change

[Vought 28]

Comparing the information highway to the steam engine highway is innacurite. Besides, each situation deserves to be judged individually, something our law makers should be aware of. Simply preserving precedent ensures we will never throw off the shackles of the past.

Re:Things change

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, our lawmakers should be aware of this. But I think the anti-exceptionalists have a compelling point: it is not sufficient to just walk into every cyberlaw case and whine "but the Internet is different!!!". Many of the changes we -- I'm arrogantly speaking for the whole geek community here -- want to see, need to be fought the long and hard way through the various legislative bodies. We can't expect to leapfrog over the process via the court system.

And we need patience. Lots of patience. Look at how long the Civil Rights struggle has lasted and is still continuing...

Re:Things change

[DJ Uptime]

Comparing the information highway to the steam engine highway is innacurite. Besides, each situation deserves to be judged individually, something our law makers should be aware of. Simply preserving precedent ensures we will never throw off the shackles of the past.

Wow. You have an incredibly "innacurite" (sic) view of how law works. We use all available existing judgments to find the most appropriate categorization for each new situation (like qsort(3)). More often than not, questions arising from a new situation are resolved by fitting that situation in somewhere between a 50-year old decision and a 100-year old decision.

Oooh, "shackles of the past," as if we should all read that and immediately recognize that there is some huge injustice that needs to be removed. Try motivating your disgust a bit more with actual arguments and come back later.

Re:Things change

[Vought 28]

First of all, my spelling sucks and thanks for rubbing my face in it. Secondly, what I meant was that all too often a judge would like to rule in one fashion, as he feels it is fair and right to do, but ends up having to make a ruling in the oppposite way because of past precedent. Several judges have admitted to this in the past, saying that the judicial system made a mistake in such and such a case. To be honest, I was trying to be impartial.

Re:Things change

[bsartist]

You're getting too caught up in the specifics of the analogy. Here's a better one:

Compare the act of defacing a web site with that of spray-painting a brick and mortar store front. Graffiti is basically the same, whether it's on a web site or in the real world. We don't need a new law that applies specifically to the former; instead, we should simply charge the kiddies with vandalism, just as we would if they did the latter.

The article doesn't say that the internet doesn't change anything, nor does it say that absolutely no new laws will be needed. The article is saying that in some cases, we don't need new laws because existing laws already apply. Murder was already illegal when guns were first invented; it was not necessary to create a new law to make murder by gunshot illegal as well.

Re:Things change

[Morel]

Compare the act of defacing a web site with thatof spray-painting a brick and mortar store front. Graffiti is basically the same, whether it's on a web site or in the real world. We don't need a new
law that applies specifically to the former; instead, we should simply charge
the kiddies with vandalism, just as we would if they did the latter.

The whole idea, inelegantly explained in John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,
is that we should NOT resort to 'charging the kiddies with vandalism', just
like you'd do in real life. Cyberspace has it's own set of rules and, in
this case, recognizes that script kiddies that deface websites are prevalent
and that webmasters are responsible for keeping their sites secure. A rather
drastic form of personal responsibility, perhaps, but congruent with the
underlying meritocratic philosophy that states: "If you can't stand the heat
get out of the kitchen!" :)

Morel

(Thanks to Harry Truman for the quote)

Re:Things change

[blight2c]

wow, "meritocratic philosophy"? you're really getting your money's worth for that 15k education. it's too bad you didn't actually respond to the guy's post. he's saying vandalism is vandalism, beit a 2d webpage, 3d storefront, or the backcover of that dictionary of quotations who so aptly used. just because defacing websites is "prevalent"/trendy doesn't make the crime any different or more worthy of attention/protection. if your gonna contribute, why don't you note the fact that defacing a website effectivly "closes" the store while repairs are made, possibly resulting in higher damage costs, but not changing the defination of the crime.

Re:Things change

[Gorobei]

Compare the act of defacing a web site with that of spray-painting a brick and mortar store front. Graffiti is basically the same, whether it's on a web site or in the real world. We don't need a new law that applies specifically to the former; instead, we should simply charge the kiddies with vandalism, just as we would if they did the latter.

Oh, like we already have copyright law, so we don't need a new one, like the DMCA?

Re:Things change

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take that approach, we as a civilization take a huge step backward. extending your logic, that means that a woman who is raped did not take adequate steps to 'secure' her person, or that a store that was vandalized, etc.
What you (and that book, if your opinion is correct) are promoting is anarchy, which in the non-utopian real world generally boils down to the rule of power.
Given that situation, you will eventaully lose your rights to cyberspace anyway, since corporations can present a united front against the bands of marauders attacking them. The net result MAY eventually become the same as it is, but COULD be a good deal worse; look at Kevin Mitnick- he was treated like a terrorist because he was an expert in a medium that was scary and new to the legal system.
Sadly, you can justify their reactions in these situations- if you had a black widow spider in your house, would you kill it? most people would say yes, but do you know that a black widow bite is rarely lethal, and only if the victim is a small child or allergic to its venom. So your ignorance of the facts would cause you to over-react, and justifiably so.
Now, if regular laws were applied to Kev, then that would never have happened; he was definitely the victim of severe civil rights violations, his due rights were messed with, etc.
What I am saying is that if he were treated like an ordinary criminal, and not like some kind of scary wizard, that would have turned out better.

I say apply regular laws and precedents; we stand to lose a lot more if we dont, because the law certainly isnt on the side of the citizen today.

Re:Things change

[Morel]

Ok, I'll bite.
First, I did respond to the guy's post. He's not only saying that vandalism is vandalism, he's saying that it should be treated the same regardless of where it happens. He states that we should apply the same laws to cyberspace that we apply to real life. I disagree and posted the reasons why I do.

Second, I don't think defacing websites is trendy or that it is worthy of attention or protection. Don't put words in my mouth.

Third, the fact that defacing a website (which I think is A Bad Thing) temporarily closes it, does not contradict my point: Cyberspace, as defined in the article, has different rules than real life does. Website defacement is something that script kiddies do, and should be dealt according to the rules of cyberspace exclusively. Full stop.

Re:Things change

[DEBEDb]

that webmasters are responsible for keeping their sites secure. A rather
drastic form of personal responsibility, perhaps

So why charge anyone with vandalism? Aren't brick-and-mortar store owners just as responsible for keeping their storefronts secure? They can post
some guards 24/7 outside, surely.

Re:Things change

[bsartist]

Cyberspace has it's own set of rules

You state that as if it's a fact, when it's that very question, whether "cyberspace" should have its own set of rules, that is the subject of this debate.

If a group of terrorists gather on IRC to plan an attack, is the crime that they're planning to commit changed in any way by the fact that they planned it in "cyberspace," instead of using telephones? If someone is killed with a hammer blow to the head, is the murderer more or less guilty than if he'd used a gun or a knife? If someone burns down a house, does his level of guilt depend on whether he started the fire by rubbing two sticks together, or with a Bic lighter?

To put it more generally, if technology creates a new means of committing a crime, without changing the basic nature of the act itself, then what need is there to create new laws? What useful purpose does it serve to outlaw specific methods of committing a crime, when the basic crime itself is already well covered by our existing laws?

Re:Things change

[uchian]

Compare the act of defacing a web site with that of spray-painting a brick and mortar store front. Graffiti is basically the same, whether it's on a web site or in the real world. We don't need a new law that applies specifically to the former; instead, we should simply charge the kiddies with vandalism, just as we would if they did the latter.

This is actually a bad anaolgy. The correct analogy is to compare web site defacing with breaking into the store and then spray painting your name on all of the products. You would have a breaking and entering charge on top of the vandalism.

Re:Things change

[Anonymous Coward]

Several judges have admitted to this in the past, saying that the judicial system made a mistake in such and such a case.

Like Roe v. Wade?

Re:Things change

[R2.0]

"But I think the anti-exceptionalists have a compelling point: it is not sufficient to just walk into every cyberlaw case and whine "but the Internet is different!!!".

In one sense the internet IS different - it DOESN'T EXIST in a legal sense. The "Internet" is a communication means. It only intersects humans - the real object of laws is human behavior, after all - at it's interfaces. A human commits fraud, seduces a minor, sells stolen property, at a keyboard, printer, screen, and does it for real life spoils - money, sex, respect. It's what the actual human beings do at those interfaces that should be judged, not the means by which they do it. As for laws needing to change - no shit, they always need to change, and do change.

The internet is "different" from a legal standpoint just as the dot-economy was "different" from the old economy: just a different way for the unscrupulous to do things they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do.

Re:Things change

[AoT]

it'd be more like breaking in, spraying your name on the inside of the window and locking up when you left.

Re:Things change

[soulhakr]

The internet is "different" from a legal standpoint just as the dot-economy was "different" from the old economy

Perhaps. It is interesting to note that the "dot-economy" seems to have failed in many respects. Do we want the same thing to happen to the our legal system?

It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been screwed ever since we gave niggers the right to vote.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

As a black man - my heritage is in Nigeria - I take much offence at that remark. It's bigots like you who should have their right to vote removed.

I cannot understand how such a seemingly fair site as Slashdot tolerates this sort of racism.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[perl_god]

Hey, man, you're kinda overreacting!
Honestly, I didn't see his post as being racist in any way...

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot?? You really can't see the racism in that statement? What other possible interpretation can you get out of the statement "we've been screwed ever since we gave n*****s the right to vote." ?!

You guys are reaally starting to piss me off!!

Re:It's all downhill from here

[blkros]

As a white man living in Maine, USA, I take ofense to it also. But since Slashdot is fair it should be moderated down to -1 pretty soon. There're jerks where-ever you go. /. isn't immune to them.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonvmous Coward]

I wouldn't say that Slashdot tolerates racism. Rather, it doesn't tolerate censorship. Unfortunately, that means that terms like the one that offended you (it offended me as well) can be expressed. On the flip side, though, the majority cannot quiet you. If everybody believes in God, and you say 'Long Live Vishnu', you won't be censored for it.

I don't think Slashdot is the problem, I think the real problem is the idiot who can't show some respect.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[perl_god]

Long Live Vishnu!!!!
Now, I suppose that some paranoid moron is going to see THAT as a racist statement, too!
sheeshh....

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

Traitor

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't a racist statement. If you had instead slated someone elses religion in an insulting way, then that would be racist.

For example, if you started referring to 'those filthy kikes' or 'goddamn pig-fucking Muslims' - that would be racist.

Expressing happiness for your own religion/race should not be construed as racist.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to admit things would be a lot nicer around here if it wasn't for all the fucking coons having their say.

All they ever vote for is more fried chicken, watermelon and white women anyway.

Since this is America, I think they should be able to vote, but their votes shouldn't count. That way they won't riot, but they won't be able to impose their stupid little ideas on the honest white man.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[WIAKywbfatw]

That isn't a racist statement. If you had instead slated someone elses religion in an insulting way, then that would be racist.

For example, if you started referring to 'those filthy kikes' or 'goddamn pig-fucking Muslims' - that would be racist.

Expressing happiness for your own religion/race should not be construed as racist.

Err, Muslims are semites. Just like Jews, they consider pigs to be filthy animals and don't eat pork (or, as Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, they don't dig on swine). The idea that a Muslim would lie down with a pig isn't intrinsically racist, but it is highly offensive to a Muslim.

Arguably, by even suggesting that Muslims would have intimate contacts with pigs, your words are more inflammatory than you perhaps originally imagined. In essence, your examples of how to cause offence are highly offensive, ignorant of the Islamic faith and, as such, could be interpreted as racist.

Oh, the irony.

(FYI, I am not a Muslim. I'm just a pedant.)

Re:It's all downhill from here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the whole point, Mister Obvious.

Re:It's all downhill from here

[perl_god]

The idea that a Muslim would lie down with a pig isn't intrinsically racist, but it is highly offensive to a Muslim.

Ok, well suppose, for argument's sake, that one were to substitute "goat" for "pig",
as in: "goddamn goat-fucking Muslims" --
could that be somehow construed as offensive?

Sounds like...

[mystran]

something pretty good for a while. But then again there are laws specifically for autos also. Hard to say really which is better view.

"Cyberbuffs"?

[saintlupus]

cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia.

I prefer to think of myself as a nihilistic technofetishist.

(Name That Quote!)

--saint

I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Also hate regular niggers (a.k.a. porch monkeys) too.

I knew summer was here when I saw shirtless porch monkeys strutting like
chickens and gobbling watermelon while boombox jungle noise filled the air.

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you please stop being so racist, you filthy bigot. I'm sick of the anti-black sentiment that seems to fill this site these days.

I am black and proud of it! So be silent, fool.

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[perl_god]

I really think you need to calm own and evaluate that post on the merit of the facts, and not just cry "racist" whenever someone challenges your world-view. Any racism you perceived is only a reflection of the contents of your own subconscious!

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[trollercoaster]

That should be:

"So be silent, foo!"

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[perl_god]

Whatchu talkin' bout, sucka?!

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts? What facts??

It has nothing to do with challenging my world view - the post was BLATANTLY RACIST using all sort of foul language against my race. Don't give me any of that subconcious nonsense, either.

You must be a COMPLETE IDIOT if you can't see why the post was racist!!

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[perl_god]

You must be a COMPLETE IDIOT if you can't see why the post was racist!!

C'mon now -- there's absolutely no need to resort to that kind of personal attack. I think this is one reason why America has such a hard time having a meaninful dialog on Race; no respect for different perspectives.
In this matter, there is no (you'll forgive the pun) "black and white", only equally valid shades of gray!

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing my point entirely - it was his terminology that I took exception too. I have no problem with reasonable debate, but referring to us as "porch monkeys" and using the n-word is a step too far.

Sorry to have shouted insults at you, but your lack of understanding of this simple fact really infuriated me. My apologies.

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I hear the word "nigger" all the time when they are playing jigaboo music.

It is pretty common.

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

That is irrelevant. Those are black people who have no respect for themselves. I thoughroughly disagree with their terminology too, given its racist roots.

Re:I hate Internet Niggers

[bigsexyjoe]

He's just trying to get a reaction out of people. You should ignore him. But as long as I'm posting; the only thing more pathetic than a bully who has to do it over the computer so he doesn't get his ass kicked.

Cars changed the law

[Vought 28]

When cars were widely available, new laws certainly came into effect. Speed limits were posted (not previously needed for horse and buggy carriages). Now exhaust limits, to controll pollution, are in place. Free trade laws, or lack of them, were hammered out in gov't because of the money involved. Each tech upgrade requires us to examine how it will affect humanity, and the internet is no different.

Re:Cars changed the law

[coyote-san]

Your analogy proves their point.

Cars introduced new laws (e.g., the infamous "red flag/red lantern" law in Britain), but it didn't invalidate any of the earlier laws.

If you couldn't cut across a field with horse and buggy, you couldn't cut across a field in your new car.

If you horse trampled a child and caused injury, you were responsible. If your car ran over a child and caused injury, you were responsible.

If you couldn't transport something in your horse-drawn buggy (e.g., moonshine), you couldn't transport it in your car.

In contrast, a lot of sleazy characters <i>are</i> attempting to claim that commonsense laws don't apply to the net. E.g., how many pyramid scheme letters did you get that were "legal" since they didn't use the mail. Too bad the Postal Inspector held that he did have jurisdiction since they used the postal mail to get the money! How many companies continue to push illegal products (drugs, both prescription and illicit), or "low rate" insurance which has a low rate because you'll never have a claim paid, or any of the other scams in circulation. Or how about the companies that are fradulently impersonating third parties to get past the spam filters. (Want to see the bounce messages for fradulent messages sent out "by" my company?)

Even the new laws that the 'net does need should be informed by historic precedence. The specifics are, but almost none of the concepts haven't been seen repeatedly over the past few centuries.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Zeinfeld]

When cars were widely available, new laws certainly came into effect. Speed limits were posted (not previously needed for horse and buggy carriages).

But the first legislative response to the car was the passing of the red flag act in the UK which required a man to walk in front of a car with a red flag.

The attempts to legislate cyberspace in the US have mostly been as clueless. The CDA, COPA, DMCA, etc. etc. All pushed with the primary goal of making a congressman look cybersavy.

Where the article is wrong is that the technologists are not the ones calling for the laws. It is the army of self appointed experts who think everything is changing, Internet time, etc. etc.

The media thinks that the experts on the Internet are academics who write books on it not the people who write RFCs, architect standards etc. They think that everything is changing at the speed of light only because they have so little grasp of the technology.

It took us six years to get HTTP adopted as a standard. We are currently working on redoing RPC and CORBA in XML syntax. We are doing it better (and the CORBA losers have only themselves to blame), but ten years after it could have happened.

I did two specs in the past 18 months which is pretty much a record for standards work. It is going to take us at least five more years before a significant fraction of commerce transations are e-comerce (but not value, since a small number of transactions account for 90% of value).

The point is that the Internet does not move so fast that the legislature needs to take special measures.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

And now there is a world of car drivers existing with (a now much smaller) world of buggy drivers, each having its own set of rules. The two worlds exist in parallel in the same physical space.

Most people belong to parallel social/governmental/political systems such as the various levels of government ( In the USA it would be town, state, federal, international, though others are available). Many also choose to be governed by some religious structure, often one that proclaims itself to be totally separate from regular government. It is the same with the internet. The online world is a separate sociopolitical structure that exists in the same physical space as other systems, and so it should continue to have its own rules.

Re:Cars changed the law

[fishbowl]

>Speed limits were posted (not previously needed
>for horse and buggy carriages).

I'm not going to look up a cite for you, but I can assure you that speed limits did exist for ridden horses as well as for carriages in many urban areas, long before the inception of the automobile.

Obviously the "speed limit" was a subjective measure, but accidents due to unsafe equestrian locomotion were quite common.

This does not detract from your post at all, I realize, but I think it's important to get a perspective. Urban crowding and transportation issues did not begin with the horse and buggy.

If you really feel like researching this, one place to start would be Pittsburgh, which I know for certain had a speed limit in the horse-and-buggy days. It would not surprise me at all to find documented cases of people getting in trouble for "dui" in the 19th century.

Another, probably even older example is from the biography of one of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. For the life of me I can't remember which one. But it appears he was something of a scofflaw, there being a known citation for his habit of driving the carriage at full tilt!

As a side note, there is a frequently vectored story about the signers and the greif they withstood... but most of that is myth...

Re:Cars changed the law

[shepd]

>If your car ran over a child and caused injury, you were responsible.

I want to ask a question (which may seem silly to you, but to anyone in North America, it catches them off guard, and is hard to believe).

Is it true, in the UK, that if a car hits a jaywalker that the jaywalker is at fault and that the driver sustains minimal, if any, legal punishments?

If so, did the same style of law apply to horses and buggies or not?

Just wondering...

Re:Cars changed the law

[bsartist]

It would not surprise me at all to find documented cases of people getting in trouble for "dui" in the 19th century.

For what, getting your horse drunk? You could pass out cold on horseback, and still make it home safely, because the horse knows its own way home. Of course, you'd wake up in the barn...

Re:Cars changed the law

[Issue9mm]

I know that it's true in the United States. As long as you
a) weren't speeding,
b) didn't evade the scene of the crime,
c) weren't under the influence of anything,
d) weren't doing anything else considered wrong,
then you didn't do anything wrong, really.

If someone walks out in front of your car in an area that you don't expect them to be (school zones, crosswalks, etc.), then you haven't committed a crime, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

I suppose you could be slapped with a "failure to maintain a proper lookout", but seriously, there are a ton of instances in which I might have hit a jaywalker that would literally not be my fault. I imagine the same applies.

As for horse and buggy days, I couldn't say.

-9mm-

Re:Cars changed the law

[rodgerd]

Actually, both the development of railroads and cars have cause massive legal exceptions - perhaps this wasn't the case with the Federal roads (for example) in the States (although I doubt it), but wholesale forced confiscation of land for roading has been the norm in many Western countries. In fact, studying the history of rail in the US suggests a number of legal exceptions were made for the railroad companies in terms of how they wished to do business.

That said, I wouldn't be unhappy about winding back special laws for new technologies; we can start by invalidating business patents, patents on software, patents on natural phenomena generally, EULAs, grossly extended copyright provisions, acceptance of the notion that trademarks were meant to prevent criticism of companies, that technology companies should be exempt from normal labour law provisions like overtime and hiring immigrants, or that teh recording industry should be able to attack my property if they think I'm a crook. Getting fair use back would be nice, too.

Hey this ending legal exceptionism looks like good shit.

What's that? This is a complaint by vested interests who like these Draconian violations of existing norms and laws against citizens, not meant to cause us to reexamine the results of their special pleading? Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't realise it was a device to enslave and shaft us harder.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Ziviyr]

I suppose you could be slapped with a "failure to maintain a proper lookout", but seriously, there are a ton of instances in which I might have hit a jaywalker that would literally not be my fault. I imagine the same applies.

The thing is that mobilefetishists have been allowed to bring speed limits of traffic that exists ridiculously close to sidewalks to ridiculously high speeds.

As if everyone has a right to wield 1 ton kinetic weaponry in public anyways...

Re:Cars changed the law

[mangu]

I know that it's true in the United States.

Which one of them states?

As long as you
a) weren't speeding,
b) didn't evade the scene of the crime,
c) weren't under the influence of anything,
d) weren't doing anything else considered wrong,
then you didn't do anything wrong, really.

Well, it's basic morality. You didn't do anything immoral, no matter what means of transportation you were employing.

But there are some laws, or should I say "regulations" that apply, specifically, to one technology. For instance, why do the British drive on the left side of the road and most anybody else on the right side? There was an old English law mandating that horse riders drive on the left side. This had a reason: horse riders, most of them right-handed, carried their whips on the right hand. Therefore, it was safer for pedestrians if horse-riders went on the left side of the road. In the late 1700's, Napoleon, then in war with England, made a law mandating the opposite, just to spite the evil English. Since France was an influential nation diplomatically, and the rest of the world liked to spite the economically dominant Britain as well, similar laws became fashionable around the world.

On which side of the road you drive may not be very relevant in an animal-transportation economy, but it's one of the most important laws in a machine-driven world.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Issue9mm]

My apologies, I meant specifically Tennessee, but the law has been pretty much universal for every state that I've lived in (to my knowledge).

It probably doesn't apply in states like Hawaii, where there is a heavy tourist population, large amounts of sidewalk merchants, and no crosswalks (downtown Waikiki, to the best of my recollection).

And yes, I agree that it is basic morality, unless (as addressed in another post here) you clearly saw them, had time to react, and just didn't because they were jaywalking.

-9mm-

Re:Cars changed the law

[sconeu]

Sorry, but in CA, pedestrians always have the right-of-way, even if they're jaywalking. Of course, they can get ticketed for that, but if you see them, you have to try to miss them.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly "why do the British drive on the left side of the road and most anybody else on the right side?" - particularly when the list of countries which drive on the left hand side includes most of Asia:

Asia: Indonesia, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal, Brunei.

Oceania: Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Tonga, Solomon Islands, and Fiji.

Indian Ocean: Seychelles, Mauritius.

Europe: Cyprus, Malta, Channel Islands, Ireland and United Kingdom.

Africa: South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Somalia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, and Malawi.

South America, Central America And The Caribbean: Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St Christopher, St Helena, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent, Falkland Islands, Suriname, Guyana, Tobago, Trinidad.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed limits were posted (not previously needed for horse and buggy carriages)

WRONG. Speed limits were in fact imposed on horse and buggies. Sure, the measurement of horse speed was imprecise. But there were limits.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was more a case of "I know British people drive on the other side of the road, and I live in America (the other country besides Britain) therefore Brits drive on the wrong side, and the rest of the world does what America does".

Quite appropriate, considering the tone of the guy writing the article.

"We already have perfectly appropriate laws, we don't need new internet ones"

Uhh, which 'we' are you talking about there, chief? World != USA, Internet != USA

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it varies from state to state.

In most states (and Illinois, where I live and was actaully hit by a car while jaywalking) the driver is at fault; they are the one with the two ton vehicle, so they carry the responsibility. There are mitigating factors, such as if the pedestrian was intentionally trying to get hit (scammer, suicide by automobile, etc) or was extremely negligent (trying to cross an expressway).
Other states have (my terminology may be wrong, its been a while) comparitive negligence, where the courts weight the amount of negligence held by each party, and when the settlement is awarded the person struck recieves the amount less their % of negligence.
Also, I think some states claim that if the pedestrian is in any way negligent they have no legal basis to sue.

Re:Cars changed the law

[mangu]

OK, correction, "why do the British AND SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THEIR FORMER COLONIES, PLUS JAPAN, THAILAND, INDONESIA, SURINAME, AND TANZANIA drive on the left side of the road and most anybody else on the right side?"

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Massachussets law, you have to yield to pedestrians, even if they're crossing against the light. Also, the operator of a motor vehicle is required to maintain safe speeds with respect to pedestrians and other traffic. Rightly so.

Traffic laws are constantly evolving, and designed to suit local needs. For instance, New York City has probably outgrown most of its laws regulating horse-and-buggies, but such laws are needed in places with large Mennonite or Amish communities. Likewise, laws regarding the use of roads for farm equipment are still relevant in rural Indiana. And in large metro areas, new bicyle laws are being passed as many young people turn to bicyles for commuting.

Re:Cars changed the law

[DEBEDb]

E.g., how many pyramid scheme letters did you get that were "legal" since they didn't use the mail.

IANAl, but I thought that was exactly a technicality. That is, the pyramid schemes were not illicit per se, but because they violated some Post Office rules/laws. There is a difference.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have Jaywalking her ein the UK, in fact we generally only know the term from US films.

A pedestrian has the right of way on a road.

A car has to stop when a person is in the road, if they hit them it's the drivers fault.

The only exception is if the driver is not able to stop in time (based on speed limit and conditions), say if someone runs out from behind a bus just as your passing.

You are required to be on the lookout for potential hazards while driving, if you didn't see them because you were grabbing a tape of the floor and wern't looking, even if you could not stop in time based on the speed limit and conditions you would still harbour some bame.

Re:Cars changed the law

[Scooter]

Hear hear. Why is it that as soon as computers or the "I" word is mentioned, common sense, or the ability to map these events onto existing law dissappers?

One such example occurred here in the UK when the ISP Demon Internet were being sued by some authority or other for offences relating to the content of one of their customer's web sites. In a feat of logic, the prosecutors claimed Demon were responsible. That's a bit like claiming that the manufacturer of the paper is responsible for what a newspaper prints on it.

I've overheard discussions, or seen threads on newsgroups where people debate whether mp3's are "legal". Well of course the format is legal - but copying copyrighted works and distributing them is still not legal, no matter what form they are in - whay is this such a big mental hurdle for people?

Theft is still theft, libel is still libel, and fraud is still fraud - no matter the instrument of perpetration!

Re:Cars changed the law

[macdaddy357]

Whether hitting a pedestrian is a crime varies from state to state. In Kentucky, for example, If a motorist hits a pedestrian, he/she is guilty, and the circumstances are irrelevant.

Re:Cars changed the law

[SnapShot]

The parent post should be copied and send en mass to every one of these skeptics.

The sad part is, given all of the above examples of business-friendly laws (not necessarily technology-friendly as it was described in the article) the only example the journalist was able to come up with was the French-Nazi-Yahoo ruling. Wow, the sceptics are against Nazies, but I guess they'll probably come out in favour of apple pie and mothers.

Re:Cars changed the law

[catfood]

Where the article is wrong is that the technologists are not the ones calling for the laws. It is the army of self appointed experts who think everything is changing, Internet time, etc. etc.

The media thinks that the experts on the Internet are academics who write books on it not the people who write RFCs, architect standards etc. They think that everything is changing at the speed of light only because they have so little grasp of the technology.

Mod up, my brother.

The WSJ article read like a Katzian strawman exercise. "Cyberbuffs" (who are they?) believe everyday laws shouldn't apply to "cyberspace." And how do we know this? Because that Declaration document has been around a few websites, and because so many of these visionaries are testifying at conferences. With few being named.

Oh. *shrug* I just figured they could quote just one proponent of this "exceptionalism" view that the article is so busy tearing down.

If there's anyone seriously pushing the exceptionalism theory, it's clueless and/or sinister members of Congress, doing so to justify crazy new laws like DMCA. ("Digital Millenium Copyright Act"? Does any real geek ever talk about this being the "Digital Millenium"?)

Re:Cars changed the law

[FrEaK7782]

Uhh, which 'we' are you talking about there, chief? World != USA, Internet != USA

This actually makes me wonder... What percentage of the Internet is "american"? Last time I checked, the US had the largest population online.

As far as the world equaling US, I'd be curious how much of the world's capital(value) is American owned/controlled. Anyone know(have a source)?

No Changes?

[shepd]

Sounds good to me.

Who the heck needs the DMCA, CDBPTA, and all that other crap anyways?

Oh, I know -- the lawyers that bottom feed off of it.

Re:No Changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason I was watching Justice League on CN last night, and all the main characters were on this planet with the Green Lantern on trial for something. The people on that planet said they solved their lawyer problem, but the Flash was welcome to speak for GL. However, should he fail to win his case, he would suffer the same fate as GL. The Flash said something along the lines of "wtf" and the judges said that's how they solved their lawyer problem.

Would be quite a nice thing to do to this country.

Re:No Changes?

[ukryule]

That seems to be the point. Most laws are about the actions of people/companies - the internet might make some of those actions easier, but doesn't affect the legality of what they do, so why change the law?

For example, take copyright. Is it legal for me to make 100 tape copies of one of an album I have bought, and then sell/give them away? No. So is it legal for me to upload the song onto the net, and let 100 people download it? No.

So why do you need new laws to deal with people sharing music on the internet? This article is arguing that you don't.

Re:No Changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you say that now, but just wait until you need a lawyer to protect yourself.

One big thing w/ cyberlaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Is venue. Where is the case going to be held? For a website being sued, is it where the website is hosted? Where the owner lives? Where the person suing lives? It may not be totally new, but it makes issues such as thing much more common than before.

A Puzzle For You!

[perl_god]

Gee
...Oh
...Ay
...Tee
...Ess
...Eee
... Ex

-1 AntiAmerican...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I'd like to see?

'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'

I'd like to see George W. Bush try to say that exact quote without fudging one word.

Re:-1 AntiAmerican...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man... if I had any karma left... I'd mod that sucker up! But, since I don't... I'll remove
my +1 and post as an AC.

The steam engine changed Laws

[Grey]

I suspecte that the railway laws, and even the basic taffic laws come from the changes that the Steam engine had on socity. After all horses don't need that much regulation. Let see other examples of new tech changing laws:

• Records: made perfomances copyright able
• Radio, again copyrights, plus broadcased regulations.
• Printing press: Copyright!
• ...

I suspect that it is the law makes that are lacking in historical persective not the techies.

nihilistic technofetishist!

[Shalome]

nihilistic technofetishist: William Gibson. Panther Moderns.

two cent gallery

[tomstdenis]

For all of you with the wittism to point out new laws came about for cars, locomotives, etc...

The point of the article is that existing laws didn't bend for the new technology.

It was illegal to murder someone before the car. Its illegal to murder someone after the invention of a car. Its even illegal to murder someone in a car *and* with a car.

In the states there is "vehicular manslaughter" but premeditated murder with a car is still IIRC murder in the 1st. The former charge would be if you unintentionally cause an accident that is your fault that kills someone.

Anyways, its just more bs from a news source. Don't they just point out the obvious for a living then call it news?

Tom

Re:two cent gallery

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, St Denis! Are you one of these damn ugly niggers posting their goddamned jungle shit here again?

Re:two cent gallery

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go again with your small minded racist remarks, you evil bigot.

When are you going to learn to SHUT THE HELL UP??

You have no right to slander a person's race like this!

Re:two cent gallery

[perl_god]

Look, you have to make allowances for cultural differences. Not everyone is from Nigeria-and yu can't expect everyone to express themselves in ways which conform to your liking. Again,I say, debate the facts, lay off the Ad Hominem name-calling!

Re:two cent gallery

[Anonymous Coward]

actually this is incorrect.

before the car, if you accelerated a large mass of metal, which, after collision with a person caused
the death of that person, you were guilty of at
least manslaughter.

nowadays, if the particular metal mass being accelerated is a car, it's called a traffic-accident, and the murderer frequently
doesn't go to jail.

Re:two cent gallery

[tomstdenis]

Not being a lawyer and all...

If you premeditated the murder even using a "large mass of metal" its still murder in the first. I mean try killing your neighbour with a light saber [or whatever newly invented killing device you can find] and see how quickly you get charged with age-old law.

Tom

Shifting jobs overseas...

[hackwrench]

I just saw a show where in an earier time Irish immigrants were working in a mill worked overtime and as a result American nationals were forced to work overtime too... With all this talk of jobs going overseas, such a thing couldn't possibly have happened, could it...

Relevant Links

Actually they have a point.

[teasea]

We actually shouldn't treat cyberspace differently. I think what many want is for the entire world to be treated like cyberspace, where censorship and repression are difficult and ultimately, impossible for the truly determined.

Re:Actually they have a point.

[carrier lost]

I wish I could mod you up. You summed up the entire thing in two sentences.

kudos

MjM

Re:Actually they have a point.

[p00ya]

Mmmm well as the article says, 'cyberspace' is just a whole lot of people on the telephone simultaneously...
Should our phone calls be censored? Should we be repressed while talking over the phone?

So yes treat it as it is, a communication medium; do not treat it just as another place that has its own by-laws run by a 'technocracy' (lol)

Exceptionalism

[dmiller]

Information technologies and the internet *are* different for a simple reason: information scarcities are almost puerly artificial.

Until recently, even software distribution has had a physical component (e.g. the media + manual). We are approaching the point where software this is the exception, with the norm being distribution via the internet (free software has already passed this point). Any pretence of software or "content" being scarce in the traditional sense of the word will then be completely bogus.

Add to this decades of corporate abuse of the copyright system (Sonny Bono, et al.) and you have a system that is terminally screwed. Perhaps they are right: we shouldn't be making exceptions for the Internet, we should overhauling the whole system :)

Re:Exceptionalism

[Vought 28]

I've got to admit, I'm curious. What did Sony Bono do ?

Re:Exceptionalism

[perl_god]

I've got to admit, I'm curious. What did Sony Bono do ?

Well, he fucked Cher, for one thing.

Re:Exceptionalism

[the eric conspiracy]

Information technologies and the internet *are* different for a simple reason: information scarcities are almost puerly artificial.

The cost of reproduction of a piece of commercial software compared to its price has been negligable since the days of the 9 track tape. The cost of a piece of pvc with grooves in it compared to the cost of an LP has been trivial since the invention of the record player. The cost of a pond of paper is trivial compared to the selling price of a book.

The fact is that it was the industrial revolution that made IP laws necessary. The internet is just a continuation on the same theme of driving down the cost of transmission and reproduction that began with Gutenberg.

Re:Exceptionalism

[Fissure_FS2]

Wasn't he the guy who patented a method for running into trees skiing? Although I think a bunch of people can claim prior art for that....

Re:Exceptionalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper has historically been the cheapest part of book publishing. You have to sell an awful lot of copies before the costs of the paper exceed the costs of inscribing text by hand or, more modernly, type setting, and you only sell that many copies of a book by mass advertising. The internet is not just a continuation of the revolution in printing that Pi Sheng (see link above) innaugurated. In the digital world, I can send you both an email and the font I want you use to read it. Or I can let you read it using any font you choose. The look of a document has become exceedingly maleable. Today there are a billion personal computers in the world, fonts are plentiful (even on X11),and information scarcities are patently bogus.

Re:Exceptionalism

[Chillblaine]

I've got to admit, I'm curious. What did Sony Bono do ?

He died. Out of 'respect' for his death, Disney decided that their new copyright extension law should be named after him.

Re:Exceptionalism

[rworne]

I believe the dubious honor of the "A method of celebrities killing themselves by tree implantation while on skis" patent goes to a Kennedy. Which is funny or tragic depending on how you look at it.

Re:Exceptionalism

[the eric conspiracy]

Paper has historically been the cheapest part of book publishing.

Not correct at all. Paper has often been the most expensive component of publishing. Until the invention of the Fourdriner and widespread use of chemically treated wood fiber in mass production of paper, paper was hand made one sheet at a time from cotton, linen or similar high value fiber. In 17th century England the use of burial shrouds was banned so as to provide more fiber for printing. The circulation of Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette was in fact often limited by the availability of paper.

The so called 'golden age' of newspapers was triggered by several major inventions - the electric lamp, giving people the ability to read after the sun went down, the web-fed printing press, Merganthaler's Linotype machine, and the Fourdriner.

The fact is that the mass production of paper is one of the key steps in the reduction in cost of the reproduction of information.

Question...

[KlippoKlondike]

I was wondering: Since the internet has become so important in not just peoples lives, but in business, economics, politics, etc., is it just a priviledge or is it now a right to have it? I'd appreciate if somebody would answer! thanks

Re:Question...

[Vought 28]

I hope it's a right. In my skewed opinion, the only things that should be labeled a privilige are things that might be dangerous for others : owning and operation a car, weapon, nuclear accelerator, etc.

Re:Question...

[Amizell]

I was wondering: Since the internet has become so important in not just peoples lives, but in business, economics, politics, etc., is it just a priviledge or is it now a right to have it? I'd appreciate if somebody would answer! thanks

IANAL, but since no lawyers have replied yet I'll give you my take. First off, keep in mind that a relatively small percentage of the world is wired. Although the Internet is very important to us in our day to day lives this is certainly not the case worldwide. I believe that the current "wired world" is a sort of prototype for the rest of the planet. We are the first societies to have these sorts of problems but as technology spreads to the rest of the world they will also face strange new issues created by our newfound ability to communicate instantly to nearly any point on the globe. Not to mention the "action at a distance" concept which would have been viewed as a sort of magic only 100 years ago. But as to your question: Is Internet access a right or a privilege? Well, first off, you need a computer or access device to even be able to use the networks. Although these devices are getting cheaper all the time they are still out of reach for huge economic swatches even in the United States. To me this is sort of like driving a car. Even if you DO have the "privilege" of driving your car that won't do you much good without actually having a car, not to mention insurance, gas and all the other accessories that are necessary for driving. Could Internet access be a right? Well, it certainly isn't in the Bill of Rights for obvious reasons. Although Jefferson declared that humans are given certain "inalienable rights" simply by virtue of being born in practice it seems that legal rights are conferred by the state. It also seems that they need to be plainly stated in the Constitution or a constitutional amendment, and even then they are constantly bent, edited and interpreted such that it is hard to tell exactly what rights we really do have. It all goes out the window if you are suspected of being a troublemaker or enemy of the state - if you're incarcerated you have very few rights indeed. There are different rights if you are a U.S. citizen as opposed to a visitor or illegal immigrant. I don't see how anyone could call net access a right in any legal sense. Maybe in 20 years. Even if it's considered a privilege there are many reasons why an individual may not be able to connect if they wanted to.

alex

Re:Question...

[linatux]

It's not a right or (IMHO) a priviledge, but a responsibility.

Re:Question...

[KlippoKlondike]

Thanks, that was all stuff i hadnt thought of before. I appreciate it :)

it's raining men!

[trollercoaster]

Hi Hi! We're your Weather Girls Ah huh
And have we got news for you You better listen!
Get ready, all you lonely girls
and leave those umbrellas at home. Alright!

Humidity is rising Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Every Specimen!
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Ameeeeeeeeeennnn!

I feel stormy weather Moving in about to begin
Hear the thunder Don't you lose your head
Rip off the roof and stay in bed
Rip off the roof and stay in bed

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Yeah!

Humidity is rising Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!
...
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! It's Raining Men! Amen!

oh really?

[heby]

now it's the "cyberbuffs" that want special and new laws for new technology? i think it's the other way - the world would be so beautiful for us geeks if old principles like "fair use" would not be undermined, if the same copyright laws that apply to print media would apply to the internet as well. and of course if censorship would be as illegal on the internet as it is in the "normal" world. the most prominent example of a special technology law is certainly the dmca: the result of massive industry lobbying.

I think I understand....

[evilviper]

They don't want a set of laws that specifically apply to the internet because there weren't specific laws that apply to trains. (Great choice, cause the internet, and trains are so similiar)

Let's choose something more modern. Let's say we shouldn't have laws that only apply to the internet because we don't have laws that apply to the phone, or the fax machine.

What's that you say? Oh, so we do have those laws.

How about comparing the internet to the post office? Oh, we've got laws for the post office too huh?

Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made.

The internet on the other hand, is unlike anything before. You can steal something, without depriving it's owner of his property. You can destry someone's property (software) and all they have to do is put it back.

The internet does need laws, but I find that people don't know where to stop. Sure we could have spam laws, or we could just use technology to block spam completely. We could have laws that outlaw unwanted phone calls, or you could buy a $30 device that requires all callers to know a 4-digit pass-number.

What we need is intelligent people guiding those that make decisions... People much smarter than most Slashdoters. The problem is that the government will be happy to spend a trillion on corporate bail-outs, but you'll practically have to work for minimum wage if you want to take a government tech job.

Re:I think I understand....

[coyote-san]

Most of the laws we need already exist, but some people have tried to claim otherwise for their own benefit.

Say someone is a child rapist? Just because it's said online doesn't mean it's not actionable (unless the person really was convicted of raping a child), but some of the internet kooks routinely did that.

A pyramid chain letter is still illegal even if it's distributed by email, but it took a number of prosecutions by the FTC and Postal Inspector to convince many people of that.

As for the argument that destroying data causes no harm because the owner can restore it, that's flat-out wrong. There are some businesses that can literally lose a million dollars every minute their computers are down (think airline reservation system, other big-ticket high-volume retailers), and most businesses will suffer real losses until the data is restored. To say nothing of data permanently lost because it's not yet backed up - 100% stable storage is extremely expensive.

If you still think it's no big deal, tell us where you live and we'll "move" your car for you. You'll get it back, eventually, so it's no harm when you're unable to use it to get to work or to go out on your hot date.

Re:I think I understand....

[evilviper]

You don't pay attention. I NEVER said that destrying the software on a system doesn't make you responsible for downtime, et al. My point was, the laws that apply to real world actions, can't always be directly applied to computers and the internet.

Hell, right now if your hard drive fails, you've got no recourse against the manufacturer. If it was a real storage facility that caught fire and destroyed your documents, you COULD sue them.

The point is that the real world is different, everything that can happen online is not necessacarily applicable to the real world.

Re:I think I understand....

[keefebert]

Your analogy compares two differnet items. A physical facility also comes with some sort of promise to keep your stuff safe. A hard drive does not. Everyone knows that they may fail. However, if a hard drive does fail, you are stuck with lost data. But, if a pacemaker fails, you are stuck with a dead guy and a medical company that is going to pay out big to that guys family. Why should the pacemaker manufacturer be responsible for damages due to their failure while a company like Maxtor would not be? The point here is that laws should not be re-written for the web if another legal precident can cover it. I think this better gets to your point, which happens to be the point opposite of the one you were making.

Re:I think I understand....

[donny]

What did trains ever do to you to deserve such dismissal? One can similarly argue that the Internet isn't a revolution either. It's just an evolution - people already knew how to get information from computer A to computer B, the Internet just made the process faster.

What makes both the steam engine and the Internet revolutions isn't the fact that things are faster than before, it's the whole spectrum of things that you couldn't even think of doing before simply because it wasn't even remotely practical. (As an example, you could easily use pigeons to check your e-mail, but it's a little silly, isn't it?) You could easily have stolen all sorts of content before your beloved Internet, people used to use diskettes for these things. Before that, magnetic tapes and punch cards.

What our legislators need to understand isn't what the Internet is so much as what it isn't. They need to be told, quite frankly, that the Internet isn't new or scary or a cesspool of anarchy, because that's what they're being told, and they're making all sorts of crazy laws because of it. They need to understand that the Internet doesn't let you do anything you couldn't technically do before. They're perfectly capable of understanding what's going on, but the right information isn't getting to them. They're being lobbied by Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA - entities whose objectives are to convince legislators that the Internet represents dangerous and uncharted territory - territory that they'd be more than happy to guide our legislators through...

Re:I think I understand....

[Fjord]

You know, one thing I never understood about the whole "every minute we're down we lose x million" idea was that it assumed people didn't really need whatever was being sold in the first place or that they would immediately call a competitor. Personally, if I need to book a flight, I need to book a flight, and I'll wait for the system to come back up to get the cheapest deal.

Granted, there will be some losses, but it's nore actually measurable. And I don't think I've ever heard of a predicted earnings adjustment due to a server being down for 18 hours.

Re:I think I understand....

[dillon_rinker]

I suspect that no one ever stole content using punched cards. I do not deny the possiblity; I merely doubt that it actually happened.

Re:I think I understand....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to imagine pirating someone's card collection while they're out at lunch...

Photocopying every punch card, then trying to cut the holes out so they matched identically, then getting the cards back to the owner's desk.

Sounds to me like punch cards are the way of the future! Someone tell the RIAA they need to develop a punch card music playing device.

"Oh crap! Susie just knocked over my Dark Side of the Moon and it's all out of order!"

Re:I think I understand....

[Arandir]

The internet on the other hand, is unlike anything before.

What a load of rubbish! This is precisely the technocratic elitism the article is talking about.

You can steal something, without depriving it's owner of his property.

You can photocopy a book without depriving it's owner of his property. All without the benefit of cyberspace.

You can destry someone's property (software) and all they have to do is put it back.

You can grafitti slogans all over a shop and all they have to do is clean it off. All without the benefit of cyberspace.

There is nothing fundamentally new about the internet. It's faster, larger and more convenient than earlier technologies, but it still follows the same old rules of physics, logic and human nature.

Re:I think I understand....

[plumby]

IANAL, but from what I remember it's not actually a crime if you just move someone's car without permission (unless you damage it in the process). If you had no intention of keeping it then, as I understand it, it's not theft (at least not in the UK).

Re:I think I understand....

[evilviper]

A physical facility also comes with some sort of promise to keep your stuff safe. A hard drive does not.

Storage facilities are held responsible only because it can be reasonably expected that it comes with the service. A hard drive can just as reasonably be expected NOT to fail... The only reason we don't hold hard drive manufacturers responsible is because of the little disclaimer on every box.

My point was that high-tech companies should be held to a much higher standard than they have been. Hardware manufacturers should not be able to simply write down a few lines that disclaim their liability. At most, they should be able to write some detailed stats that describe the lifespan of a device. e.g. hard drive manufactuers say their drives will work properly for 5 years. If you use them longer than the stated life, you are on your own.

Hell! if hardware manufacturers had greater liability, you'd see fuses on your hard drives, NICs, etc. Holding high-tech companies to a real-world standard would result in much better quality products, rather than the crap we have today.

There need to be laws governing the computer world, but they need to be made by intelligent individuals, NOT by our congress. There's too much corruption and vested corporate interest tainting the ones that are supposed to be protecting us from corporations.

Re:I think I understand....

[lawyer boy]

They don't want a set of laws that specifically apply to the internet because there weren't specific laws that apply to trains. (Great choice, cause the internet, and trains are so similiar)

The point is that trains had an enormous impact on society, not that trains and the internet are similiar technologies (come on, haven't you played Civilization?).

Keep in mind that the articles that MSNBC quoted from were published in LAW journals. Most law students and lawyers understand the important impact that the trains had on society and the law (Palzgraf anyone?). I imagine that the points made in the original, i.e., ante MSNBC, articles were that the common law evolved to deal with the legal challenges created by trains and can do so again with respect to the internet.

Re:I think I understand....

[keefebert]

You agree with me, yet write like I was wrong. Yes, HD manufacturers need to be held to a higher standard, but this standard can be accomplished with current laws. However, there is this sense among Americans that computer equipment is expected to fail, therfore it is OK. New laws are not required to improve their quality, we (society) just have to hold computer companies to the same standards we hold other companies to. As in my previous example, do you think a pacemaker company could get away a liability-waiver on their product? I doubt it, so why should a HD manufacturer? Because we let them. Now a law could stop this, but so could everyday action by the intelligent people you mention. Take them to court and fight. If it was their poor poduct that caused the issue, a waiver in a licence agreement is not bullet-proof. They should fall under the same standards as any other company, but they don't, and it is not becasue of a lack of laws.

Re:I think I understand....

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing content on punch cards was easy in the 70's. You snatched the deck from the reader, removed the users login card and placed your *dup cards* on top and submitted the deck, and replaced the front card and the owner was none the wiser. The *dup cards* copied the cards to a hard disk file and you sent that file to the punch (if you really wanted the cards).

Re:I think I understand....

[aziraphale]

It's called 'taking without owner's consent' or 'twoc'ing. They had to make a special law to cover it.

Re:I think I understand....

[markmoss]

Out on the manufacturing end, a server being down really does mean people sitting around waiting for it to come back up so they can do their jobs. We've got three people working full time just entering the parts list and build instructions for new boards we're going to build into the database - if it's off-line, they are twiddling their thumbs. Purchasers might work off their printouts for a while, but pretty soon they are going to need the database to see what parts have to be ordered. And if it's down for more than a few hours, the production line itself will grind to a halt, for lack of the printouts to start a new job.

Now, this is a server on an _internal_ net, quite safe from internet hackers and e-mail viruses. If it crashes for more than a few minutes, it's because corporate management was too cheap to buy redundant hardware, or to arrange an alternate connection from the plants to the server at HQ for when a backhoe hits the T1 trunk. But every time the Windows NT (or 2000) OS on the server takes a dump, we have dozens of people getting an extra coffee break, and that adds up.

Re:I think I understand....

[TechnoWeenie]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC the steam engine powered more than just trains. Steam engines were used to power tractors, factories etc. Having a power source that could be located _anywhere_ not just where a river turned a wheel or where the wind turned a windmill was a revolution. Having a _mobile_ power source that was not animial based was also revolutionary.

Obsolesence and Law

[Bonker]

IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions.

The problem with trying to apply laws to the Internet is that digital technology has caused a wave of obsolescence in any kind of existing communication, information technology, and dozens of other of societal concepts we hold near and dear. Law based on past precidents rather than fairness and equitable behavior can't hope to keep up through such an incredible wave of advancement.

Take copyright, for (our favorite) example. It's an artificial scarcity placed on information to encourage development of new information, bit it music, data, scientific research, or text.

Since digital technology has forever completely erased the possibility of having a finite supply of any kind of information, the length and breadth of copyright law is dying-- screaming, kicking, doing it's best to cling to existance in a scary new world inhospitable to it, but dying nonetheless. Like symbiotic bacteria, only the lawyers are keeping the dinosaurs of companies that profit by control of information alive.

Other facets of law relating to digital technology will go through similiar changes. Those laws that can adapt will make the change, just like the small rodents and other mammals who survived the Yucatan blast when the dinosaurs were obliterated. We will find the fossils of those who can't in the strata of obsolete legal records.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[the eric conspiracy]

IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions.

That is a very limited point of view. Napolonic law is also widely used.

Since digital technology has forever completely erased the possibility of having a finite supply of any kind of information, the length and breadth of copyright law is dying-- screaming, kicking, doing it's best to cling to existance in a scary new world inhospitable to it, but dying nonetheless.

How is digital technology anything more than a continuation of the development of techologies that made information cheaper to reproduce that started in the 15th century?

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Bonker]

How is digital technology anything more than a continuation of the development of techologies that made information cheaper to reproduce that started in the 15th century [prodigi.bl.uk]?

Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity. Before, there was always a scarcity in terms of information that could be stored. Books, vinyl albums, papers, documents, and the like had to be stored. They could be duplicated, but only at a relatively high expense.

The introduction of digital technology in the mix has eliminated that expense, driving the 'supply-side' of the supply and demand equation for information to infinity. Copyright is now the *only* thing propping up the sale of information.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[debrain]

It is perhaps more commonly known as "precedent law", wherein once a precedent has been set for an interpretation of legislation, a judge is obliged to honor said precedent.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[g4dget]

if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions. Common law is a peculiarly Anglo-American affliction. In most other Western nations, judges do not get to make new law.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[stubear]

Neither do they in the US legal system. Judges interpret laws but this has the effect in some cases of "creating" a law because it might have been interpreted differently from the spirit of the law or the spirit of the law is ruled binding instead of the letter of the law. In any event, the judge has not actually made law, they have merely interpreted law for other judges to base their decisions upon.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[cpt kangarooski]

Oh yes they do. There are plenty of laws that are not codified at all, and have been created by the courts, often over hundreds of years.

A lot of the law of torts, contracts, and property is common law. A lot of criminal law also descends from the common law, although that's pretty much the only area in which we no longer allow courts to make law.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[sheldon]

Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity.

Eliminated? Hardly.

It's certainly lowered the bar and made it more readily available. But to access the information one still needs the technology in place... computer, phone line, etc. And, of course, someone has to host the source of the information.

It is exactly the same as the leap forward created by the printing press in the 15th century, the leap forward created by wood pulp paper in the 19th century, and general computers in the 20th century. It's simply another step in an ongoing chain of developments.

I would have to say you certainly suffer from the cyberbuff affliction mentioned in the article.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[DavidBrown]

If copyright is the only thing propping up the sale of information, then I say, "Thank God for copyright". In spite of recent abuses (infinite copyright extensions for Mickey Mouse), copyright is important because it protects the rights of creators of intellectual property. This is a necessary incentive towards encouraging creative work.

The principal change in society brought about by the internet may be cutting out the "middle man" by making the means of distribution of intellectual property open to everyone.

If we can find some means of allowing internet distribution while protecting the rights of the copyright owners, then more artists will self-distribute their creative works - we can destroy the once necessary but now obsolete monopolies of record and book publishers.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a necessary incentive towards encouraging creative work.

No, it's not...

I understand your point, but guaranteeing that someone can still sell their art for the next 20 years after they produced it is NOT a significant factor in producing it. Art produced for cash-raising purposed is art that quickly degenerates into standard pulp.

Copyright is only a significant factor when people wish to create art instead of working. Some of us prefer to create art as a hobby, and there will always be people doing this.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Arandir]

Art produced for cash-raising purposed is art that quickly degenerates into standard pulp.

This is elitism of the bluest sort. Who are you to judge what art is worthy or not?

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[AnotherBlackHat]

If copyright is the only thing propping up the sale of information, then I say, "Thank God for copyright". In spite of recent abuses (infinite copyright extensions for Mickey Mouse), copyright is important because it protects the rights of creators of intellectual property. This is a necessary incentive towards encouraging creative work.

There are plenty of ways to incentivize the creation of information. We can pay people to create stuff directly, grant them honors, extend special privilages. If copyright was the only incentive for creation, FreeBSD wouldn't exist.
More to the point, copyright isn't very good at creating public works.

How many other alternate systems of incentives have been squashed by clinging to copyright?

-- this is not a .sig

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not elitism... it's just an observation of the art I'm fed from the usual channels. I don't hear anyone praising the amazing music and lyrics of Brittany Spears, as an example. This music is made for the sole purpose of making money, whereas genuine art is created for the love of it.

Perhaps I didn't state what I meant properly - I didn't mean to imply that everyone who would like to be paid is creating shit. I think artists should be paid, but being paid shouldn't be the basis for creating art.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[surfimp]

Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity.

Whoa, wait until the power goes out and then see just how scare your digital technology-powered information has become.

Remember, just because we don't have to print books doesn't mean that we don't have to use other resources to keep millions of computers running 24/7--to maintain the stored information in this so-called "eliminated scarcity".

You know, the need to pay those pesky electric bills (and programmers' salaries, etc) might be part of what's propping up the sale of information--not just copyright.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Chuu]

>>

Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity. Before, there was always a scarcity in terms of information that could be stored. Books, vinyl albums, papers, documents, and the like had to be stored. They could be duplicated, but only at a relatively high expense.

Ohh . . . so where do I get a free hard drive too?

There are still costs associated with duplicating and storing information. Much cheaper, but nevertheless, they are still there.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[awol]

Let me preface my comments to say that I agree whole heartedly with the poster's comments about copyright dying, albeit with the kicking and screaming of those businesses that have relied on it for their existence.

However, when you say "Law based on past precidents rather than fairness and equitable behavior can't hope to keep up through such an incredible wave of advancement."

I think you are wrong on two counts. First the tradition of the common law does show that it copes extremely well with such innovation. I would argue that the industrial revolution was the last period when such radical changes to the nature of society occured and it was precisely the common law tradition that enable the creation of "Real Property" at that time, perhaps this can explain why it was in England and not the continent in which the revolution was founded since it was only England that had the common law approach to justice. Now I am not saying that CL is perfect, nor that it is necessarily optimal, but it is certainly not an impediment to the kind of advancement through which we are travelling. Further, I think that we have lost the common law tradition in this day and age of legislative activism where everything is codified in statute (much more like the roman/germanic tradition of the civil codes), to the extent that most of the failure we would identify in today's legal environment is the result of not enough Common Law.

But I said there were two objections. The second is that the concept of Equity is also very tightly tied to Common Law in that the Equity courts grew up hand in hand to deal with the failures of the CL to provide justice in some cases. Equity has a number of maxims that provide the sense of balance inherent in the Equity/Common Law mix. These include:

• Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.
• He who seeks equity must do equity
• He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
• and my favourite: "Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done."

As you may be able to tell, I believe that this "outdated" system of civil justice is actually quite important. And I would close by suggesting that it is exactly _not_ the Common Law that is the cause of our common malaise wrt (in particular) copyright and intellectual property

As an aside. I actually think that IP as a whole is broken and broken largely because of a misapplication of the "looks like X, well then it must be X" rule that is at it's foundation. Largely because, well, IP may look like property, but that is only very superficial and the original poster has hit the nail on the head when they identify that one of the _necessary_ conditions for property, scarcity, is missing from IP, thus it cannot be property. (note also that scarcity is not sufficient to find property, just necessary)

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[lawyer boy]

IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions.

That's a pretty good assumption, but keep in mind that statutes trump common law. The legislature gets a bug up their rear and 300 years of precident goes down the drain. Add to that the fact that the executive branch has also encroached upon the areas traditionally within the judicial domain, and suddenly common law is fairly rare.

The problem with trying to apply laws to the Internet is that digital technology has caused a wave of obsolescence in any kind of existing communication, information technology, and dozens of other of societal concepts we hold near and dear. Law based on past precidents rather than fairness and equitable behavior can't hope to keep up through such an incredible wave of advancement.

Not to flame, but this is exactly the sort of "we're special" elitism that the article referenced. You don't think that the telegraph or the telephone had a profound impact on society? The irony here is that past legal precedents are generally more focused on fairness and equity than their statutory replacements that are burdened with special interest dollars (say what you will about judges, but they are certainly better insolated from undue influence than either the executive branch or the legislative branch).

As for the common law changing slowly, it's supposed to change slowly. It evolves over time. Like a glacier moveing over the land, the glacier is changed and the land is changed gradually. This is a good thing. Laws that change slowly allow businesses to make long range plans without fear that there will be a radical shift in the public policy (of course tech companies tend not to make plans of any sort -- long range or otherwise -- so perhaps this is an alien concept to many Slashdotters). I won't get into the whole law and economics thing here, but take a look at the common law jurisdictions (UK, Canada, South Africa, OZ, New Zealand, USA) and there is pretty good anicdotal evidence that the common law has not historically injured economic or technological development.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that it doesn't give them reason to create any more. Since copyright and patents last so long, anyone can come up with a killer idea and sit on it for decades and make money. Why invent something new?

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law was specifically written to give a limited time commercial monopoly to an author, so that no one but he could profit from his work "for a limited time".

It has been perverted from giving an author a commercial monopoly for a limited time, to Disney's dream of permanent ownership.

Xerox machines are found in libraries. It is not illegal to use them, nor should it be.

The US copyright laws should revert to what they were in 1900, with a maximum 20 year period and no restrictions on noncommercial use. The DMCA should not only be overturned, but copyright protection should be denied to any work encrypted or otherwise protected by technology.

-steve
Springfield Fragfest

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Artagel]

"IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions."

(Some vast oversimplifications follow)

Common law is strongest in English-derived legal systems. Most other Western countries are founded on civil law. Common law is where the rules of law are largely made by judges in resolving particular cases. Civil law focuses more on writing the law down ahead of time.

Common law tends to be more organic - it grows. Civil law is more designed. Both do try to achieve consistency and fairness. If two people lose fingers in work accidents, both systems try to award similar numbers to the two individuals. Common law is more likely to look at previous cases, civil law is more likely to have a table of damages created before the case crops up.

Each has strengths. Common law does not require thinking of everything ahead of time. Civil law puts everyone on better notice. The unpredicatability of common law, versus the "oops, missed a spot" aspect of civil law is one of tradeoffs.

Whether "cyberspace" if you think it exists would be better governed by civil or common law, is an entirely separate question from the one that started the thread. It may not be best served by the analogical reasoning of the common law, but on the other hand, a civil law approach requires more foresight than anyone has for the environment.

The above are "technical" problems of law that, for the moment, ignore political and social dimensions of "cyberspace" as a community, or "cyberspace" as a fragment of larger pre-existing communities. For example, if "cyberspace" says that it is not responsible for cyber-stalkers of 12-year-old girls in the same way that Arafat says he is not responsible for Hamas, what is the result? The response of "too bad, so sad" isn't going to cut it.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[(void*)]

And the computer, phone line, etc all exist as consumer items. Expensive, but not beyond the reach of anyone with a decent job. The next step in this development would simply to make it more ubiquitious, and cheaper.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Planesdragon]

There are plenty of ways to incentivize the creation of information. We can pay people to create stuff directly, grant them honors, extend special privilages. If copyright was the only incentive for creation, FreeBSD wouldn't exist.
More to the point, copyright isn't very good at creating public works.

And what do we do when someone breaks into your house, takes your novel, and sells it under their name? (Insert *any* literary thing you want to get money or credit for.)

Copyright exists to stop this very thing, at its core. While triming it (Copyright term) down may be a good idea so as to encourage "public works" and reuse of ideas, eliminating it as an "incentive" angle isn't a good idea.

How many other alternate systems of incentives have been squashed by clinging to copyright?

Copyright does nothing to "squash" alternate forms of incentive. Heck, the whole Free Software movement works because of copyright, not in spite of it. Nothing in the world at all says that you have to take $ in exchange for copyright.

Give me enough incentive, and I'll give you that novel I've got tucked away at home.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but i don't think you are correct here... and if you are correct, my contribution will still be of some value

in England-ish derived legal systems, common law is the law we inherited from a time before there were legislative laws. England had a broad fabric of "laws" that had been arrived at through consensus after hundreds of years of arbritration by magistrates appointed in the name of the king. So, for instance, in areas without roads people still neeeded to get around, and why should you be stopped from crossing another farmer's fields?

I point this out because this system of common law does not continue to grow once a civil law system is in place. So, in the US, it said in our constitution that we adopted the English common law that came before as a baseline.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

> And the computer, phone line, etc all exist as consumer items. Expensive, but not beyond the reach of anyone with a decent job. The next step in this development would simply to make it more ubiquitious, and cheaper.

Anyone with a decent job in your country.

There are countries that have books and other such non-electronic communications, and can't yet afford a mass market for computer-related goods.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[AnotherBlackHat]

And what do we do when someone breaks into your house, takes your novel, and sells it under their name? (Insert *any* literary thing you want to get money or credit for.)

The more insidious case is when they sneak in and make a copy, without depriving you of yours.
When that happens (and you catch them) you punish them.
A different incentive system wouldn't eliminate the need to punish the wicked.

Copyright exists to stop this very thing, at its core. While triming it (Copyright term) down may be a good idea so as to encourage "public works" and reuse of ideas, eliminating it as an "incentive" angle isn't a good idea.

Copyright law doesn't exist to prevent theft, it exists to prevent otherwise legitimate copies from being made.
The justification is that this allows the creator to make more money than they otherwise would.
Money is a powerful incentive, but copyright isn't the only way to get money into the hands of those that create.
Copyright also creates a strong belief in intellectual "property".

- this is not a .sig

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Planesdragon]

The more insidious case is when they sneak in and make a copy, without depriving you of yours.

Who said anything about stealing my copy? Copyright is chiefly focused preventing *stealing ownership.*

When I create something, I have a right to (1) credit and (2) a greater-than-other-people fiscal benefit from it. (Thus, if I write a book, I should get more money from my book than anyone else.)

When that happens (and you catch them) you punish them.
A different incentive system wouldn't eliminate the need to punish the wicked.

Copyright isn't an incentive system; it's a law. Without copyright law, someone who steals someone else's work *hasn't done anything illegal.* A publisher can view my work, publish it, make millions of dollars, and I haven't a leg to stand on without copyright.

Copyright law doesn't exist to prevent theft, it exists to prevent otherwise legitimate copies from being made.

No, it doesn't. The DMCA does. The overextenstion of copyright to cover a long dead man's works does. The twisting of copyright (the longest lived form of IP) to cover software does.

Copyright, in and of itself, *defines* what theft of someone's work is. That's all it does. If it wasn't for copyright, the most unfair and mean copying of someone's work would be just fine and dandy--even if it screws the creator out of their incentives.

Money is a powerful incentive, but copyright isn't the only way to get money into the hands of those that create.

The law doesn't give one white rat's ass about how much money a creator makes. Copyright--the law--just says "the creator of X has the right to decide who gets to make copies of X for Y time." That's it.

The profiteering lobby--most of who haven't done anything noteworthy and are where they are because artists and creators don't want to bother doing the job for themselves--care about making as much money as possible. Please attack them (RIAA / MPAA / Disney), and leave the poor law out of this.

Copyright also creates a strong belief in intellectual "property".

It's "intellectual property." As in, a legal embodiment of the sense of pride and parentage that a creator has upon looking at their finished work.

IP is a necessary beast in a capitalist society; nothing is worth anything unless it's worth money, and if most novelists were paid by the hour (time and goods being the two basic things traded for capital) they would be in violation of labor laws.

IP gives people who can do more than dross physical goods or rote labor the blind legal ability to barter their unique product in our market.

I'm all for switching the damn system, but first we got to figure out something better--and not just for "IP folks," but everyone.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Artagel]

Perhaps the common law has not grown in Commonwealth countries. That could be true. It grows, and grows, and grows in the U.S.

So negligence law (ancient) gives rise to the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitor" (it speaks for itself). Classis RIL, a barrel rolls out of the upper story of a warehouse and crushes a passerby on the street -- was there negligence? Hard to say -- nobody saw how the barrel got loose. However, RIL (it speaks for itself) is brought in by evolution of the common law.

So, then a Coke bottle explodes in a waitress' hand in California. RIL? No -- strict product liability. In a situation like that, if your product hurts someone, you play, no showing of fault required.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress. The old common law only recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress (and narrowly circumscribed it). Some jurisdictions allow emotional distress causes of action based on negligence.

Tortious intereference with prospective economic advantage -- the older common law formulation only allowed recovery with interference with contracts that had already been entered into.

The advances, changes, twists and additions continue. In 50 states and the federal system. (Admiralty law is a federal common law.)

In the area of criminal law, you are absolutely correct. There is no common criminal law in the U.S., even as a holdover. They may have written common law offenses into the code, but the common law currently carries no force for criminal prosecutions. A strictly what's-in-ink area.

Re:Obsolesence and Law

[Anonymous Coward]

> YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?

Nope. I follow this credo: "love the believer, hate the belief."

Article misses the point

[Groovus]

Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet. Certainly the French government/judiciary may rule that Nazi memorabilia advertisements and sales are not legal (online or otherwise) in France and take measures to prevent that. However the ruling in France has nothing to do with the availability of such things in India. That is the somewhat unique nature of the internet - it is multinational.

The author further tips his hand by reducing the discussion to a discourse on laws, pundits and law students in America (meaning the U.S.), showing no awareness of the extranational nature of the internet. Just as the internet is no one application (a suprisingly apt realization on the author's part), the internet does not exist in any particular place, making it indeed worthy of special consideration when it comes to legislation and legalization.

Certainly some do get carried away with the internet as champion of true democracy, etc., but the fact remains that the internet does form a unique medium for all sorts of activities carried out by participants from around the globe. It only bears comparison to the steam engine in that it has definitely changed our way of life, but the comparison ends there. Attempting to approach the ramifications of the internet in the same manner as the steam engine was approached is to suffer from "insufficient perspective, (and a )disdain for history..." as well as being short sighted and overly simplistic.

Re:Article misses the point

[WGR]

What the Internet is making more apparent is not a need for new laws, but a need for a better way to ensre that there are fair and similar laws around the world.

In the United States Constitution, many areas are reserved in law to individual states, but in the modern world they need to be uniform across the whole U.S. So instead of amending the Constitution to hand these areas over the the federal government, the states have created "model" laws by agreement, with each state enacting a copy.

This same procedure is happening in the world right now, but there is no public debate about how these laws are determined. We are often assuming that we "must" have the DMCA since it is an example of a United Nations model law about copyright.

But where is the elected body that created that model law? Our traditional manner of enacting laws is to elect representatives to reflect our wishes, flawed as that is. Where were the elections to the WIPO that created these draconian "Internet" laws? We need to return to traditional ways of democracy, even if there are new areas that need to be clarified.

Re:Article misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

call me flamebait, but...

What, you mean the US doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole world? Try telling that to the residents of Bosnia these days...

Re:Article misses the point

[alizard]

The real problem with the legal 'pundits' quoted in the article is while they don't get quoted by the media or invited to cyberlaw conferences, their articles DO get read by lawyers and judges in legal journals.

In other words, law journals publish articles about Internet-related law written by people who almost know how to use e-mail and might even know that http: is the start of a Website address and their readers take them seriously.

Law journals are the legal industry trade press.

The reader of one of these journals might be judging YOUR DMCA case using bad ideas coming from, say, the clown who supports the French decision to attack websites outside France because they are an offense against French law.

As for a solution, all I can say is that it's time that attorneys who do get the Internet start publishing more articles.

Re:Article misses the point

[lawyer boy]

Oh my God...

I'm afraid that the real problem is that you (and many others) have deemed youself qualified to slam legal scholars based upon an MSNBC article that is a distilation of a WSJ article that is in turn selectively quoting from the "legal industry trade press."

The reader of one of these journals might be judging YOUR DMCA case using bad ideas coming from, say, the clown who supports the French decision to attack websites outside France because they are an offense against French law.

Listen, no matter how special you think that you are, that doesn't mean that the tech elites are entitled to special treatment under the law. I'm a lawyer and I deal with issues that I barely understand every day. The point is that I hire an expert (doctors, economists, CPAs) to teach me what I need to know and/or testify at trial. That's the way the system works.

Re:Article misses the point

[ethereal]

The system doesn't seem to be working when it comes to the interface between existing laws and the new opportunities provided by the Internet. That is why we're concerned; if court rulings were made that appeared to actually understand how the 'net works, then we wouldn't care near so much.

Maybe y'all should hire some better experts next time around?

Re:Article misses the point

[albanac]

This same procedure is happening in the world right now, but there is no public debate about how these laws are determined. We are often assuming that we "must" have the DMCA since it is an example of a United Nations model law about copyright.

Since when did the UN provide the form for the DMCA?

Leaving that aside; that the same proceedure is happining in the world at large is reasonable; unfortunately the United States is abstaining from the process. In order to have this kind of concensus on law, nations must recognize that the forum of many nations has authority over any single nation: they must accept the rule of the majority over their own independence. In exactly the same way as any individual in democratic society must accept the rule of the majority over their own independence. If a single entity (such as an exceptionally rich aristocrat with big resources and a big private army) does not accept that concensus, the whole process is placed at risk of a dictatorial takeover.

As with the US deciding unilaterally that while international law and the International Court is fine and should have authority over everyone else, the United States should be immune, in order to protect its sovreignty.

~cHris

Re:Article misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

My server is in Canada. I am in the US. I am (and imo should be) bound by laws of both countries when making my site.

If I offer a product in France it behooves me not to stick any swastikas on it. If I am selling items with swastikas on it and an order comes from France, I should decline the sale and return any proceeds.

If France doesn't want to see the swastikas, then France should block my page. I should not be required to. It is their country, after all, and I have nothing to do with it.

-steve
Springfield Fragfest (only swastikas are when talking about Wolfenstien)

Re:Article misses the point

[Artagel]

Actually, law journals are pretty much irrelevant. Lawyers and judges pay attention to what higher courts say, and that's about it. Law journals are what are used to get law professors tenure.

Re:Article misses the point

[alizard]

youself qualified to slam legal scholars

We're supposed to treat them with respect because?

While I do not regard myself as a Cordon Bleu chef, I do regard myself as competent to spot rotten food or excrement served to me in a restaurant. I'm sure that even as an attorney, you don't need my help to tell you that your computer has crashed. You may not know that the problem is an interrupt conflict or even an intermittent cable connection, but you don't need me to tell you that you've got a blue screen in front of you.

I'm a lawyer and I deal with issues that I barely understand every day. The point is that I hire an expert (doctors, economists, CPAs) to teach me what I need to know and/or testify at trial. That's the way the system works.

Yes, but which experts? If you're so far from being clued in an area that you don't know how to pick the right expert. . . of course, you can hope that your opposition is the same shape, with a good chance of being right. Offhand, I would guess that you don't "barely" understand the issue you are arguing, it's more likely that you simply don't understand them but what you have to say is treated with respect in court because your opposite number and the judge are equally ignorant.

However, a situation where neither side really understands what's really at issue is not likely to produce a just or fair outcome.

Things are to the point where even speaking as a layman, it's obvious that there's something rotten in the kitchen. People no longer believe that the court system will produce just or fair outcomes. It is widely believed and with good reason that situations where technology is at issue are even less likely to produce just and fair outcomes.

The idea that a lawyer given access to experts is capable of understanding any issue far enough to argue a matter or render a decision about it might have been true in the days of Blackstone, but that was hundreds of years ago.

Remember that the purpose of law and courts is from the point of view of a layman, not to generate income for lawyers, or to make sure that the side with the largest bank account wins a legal dispute, but to dispense justice.

As an income machine, the law and the courts work.

Anyone who asserts that US courts dispense justice is going to be laughed at, not with, in any forum that isn't limited to the legal community.

Aside from the idiotic quote, it makes sense

[sevensharpnine]

I've never been convinced that the internet needs laws different than those affecting standard print. Obviously, some laws concerning technology will need to be implemented. But those should strive to mirror the intent of existing laws as much as possible. The law as it stands in the U.S. concerning speech works for the most part (don't bother posting all three of your examples that don't work - I've seen them). Aside from speech it's hard to argue that theft, fraud etc. need to be treated differently online. We still want identity theft and credit fraud to be illegal.

It is important to remember that when the laws on the internet are derived from existing laws, the protections also carry over. No premptive restrictions on speech, no causing imminent danger with inciteful speech and the ability to trash the government and so on exist here because we apply "real" world laws to the internet. There will certainly be some exceptions, but they must remain that. Exceptions. We have spent 200+ years forging laws that work, and we certainly don't need to throw them out the window because of a few idealogical extremists.

Re:Aside from the idiotic quote, it makes sense

[nfras]

Part of the issue is not just the existing laws, but whose existing laws. The Internet is multinational and as such every country on the planet has some jurisdiction over legislation. Many countries have issues with US laws, the French for example. As is evident from comments here, many were not fans of the decision by the French courts to stop Yahoo from selling Nazi memorabilia on their sites. Yet there are many cases of countries who have had their Internet 'freedoms' curtailed by the US. There are laws which govern international trade, diplomacy, war, why not have an international body enact laws which govern an international entity, the Internet?

Yes and no.

[boa13]

Like most Slashdot commenters, I have not read the article before writing this comment. However, I feel like posting a quick comment. It describes what I currently feel about the laws and Internet. It's not argumented. It's not great, but I hope it can sparkle interesting counter-comments. :)

Internet doesn't need new laws. There are laws that punish the acts of thievery, of diffamation, of misinformation, of undecency, of conspiracy, etc. They are generally sufficiently abstract to apply efficiently to the Internet. The government and the judges might need to adapt the way they apply the law, but it's no the same as writing new laws.

Internet need new laws. It changes some fundamental aspects of our society. The copyright law is the first one that should be revamped. But it needs a nationwide debate, not a corporal sponsorship. Some assumptions about the act of publishing should be rethought, too. In the Internet age -- my, this sounds so pre-2k! -- everyone can be a publisher. Everyone should have the right to be.

Internet need labels. Everybody can have a role on the Internet that was previously only obtainable by professionals - retailer, publisher, advisor. Yet you can't expect everybody to fare equally well, and you shouldn't expect them to be equally liable. Labels should be instored, allowing someone to say "I am a good quality publisher. I accept that I am more liable than un unlabeled publisher. You can trust me more than un unlabeled publisher".

I'm sorry I can't write something more coherent; I'm so exhausted; I need to sleep. :)

Re:Yes and no.

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest question of Internet law is juristiction. If some one from Japan puts up a Web site on a server in the UK which violates a German law, who has juristiction? Or what if an Australian posts content, illegal in his own country, to a server in Norway where it's perfectly legal? (I intentionally left out the US because we all know that they would claim juristiction no matter where they were in the chain). Basically, if you enforce any thing more than established international law, you run in to a whole bunch of what-ifs, and even then there is the question of where the offender should be prosecuted.

Michener speculated on new technology and law

[Anonymous Coward]

In Mexico James Michener (the great historical novelist) had an episode take place in 15th century Spain shortly after the discovery of precious metals in the New World (primarily Mexico). A town elder (University Professor) argued that the Romac Catholic church's law against usury, or the loaning of money, was no longer applicable to business ventures in the New World. He argued that the risk and distance (hence the communication feedback time) were too great to not allow lenders to charge interest. He was treated with suspicion and then recanted his opinion in lecture the day after being warned by several visiting scholars that he was courting a charge of heresy (don't forget that the Spanish Inqisition held a lot of political power that could not be crossed at that time).

In the other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana Linked to Sitting Around and Getting High

It's not insufficient perspective...

[Shalome]

... on the part of 'cyberbuffs,' it's insufficient perspective on the part of those who would regulate and control. Recent history has already proven that the instantaneous exchange of ideas and data is changing our world (work from home! develop software with people from all over the world! see the newest release from Indian cinema! get a Japanese pen-pal! Read the news from other countries!) Clamping down on this kind of exchange is a Draconian measure meant to protect industries that are proving themselves to be falling rapidly behind-the-times.

The internet is here. It's time for the business world to adapt, not those that are taking advantage of new technology in every way possible.

Who was it that said "the internet views censorship as damage.. and routes around it accordingly."????

futurology

[lokii202]

futurology:
The study or forecasting of potential developments, as in science, technology, and society, using current conditions and trends as a point of departure.

This is unnecessary? Uh, somebody fill me in...

Re:futurology

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unnecessary in general, but unnecessary in terms of legislation, i.e. legislation should be created to address current problems.

According to the article...I don't think I agree, though. Legislation should take into account principles and possible future implications, otherwise they are the type of knee-jerk reactions to events that we've seen after last year...

Ahhh the sound of dinosaurs

[Tri0de]

shuffling off to the tar pits.
Good riddance.

Dumfucks who don't even deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

If not traitors to the potential of the human race.

Curses be upon them.

False dichotomy

[BoVLB]

The article presents a false dichotomy. On the one hand, it talks about the "technology-friendly" who adhere to the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace" (sic), and claim that "the Internet is a new, unique thing that requires its own special laws". On the other hand, it has "cyberskeptics" who believe "something happening online shouldn't be treated any differently by the law".

In fact, the "Cyberspace Declaration of Independence" was written in response to the Telecom Reform Act, as a reaction to attempts to burden the online world with extra legislation that enforces distinctions. I believe the declaration's author, along with most readers of Slashdot, would agree with the idea that online activity generally suffers from specific laws.

The "cyber" world, just like the real world, should be governed by fair principles (such as those of the US constitution) justly applied. The point, which is totally missed by the author of this article, is that our legal system is groaning under the weight of regulations pandering to special interests, and that the good of the people comes off second best.

Re:False dichotomy

[WEFUNK]

The article presents a false dichotomy...[lot's of good stuff in here]...The point, which is totally missed by the author of this article, is that our legal system is groaning under the weight of regulations pandering to special interests, and that the good of the people comes off second best.

Damn straight! It's hard to argue for or against the points made in this article, since they really aren't valid or well researched arguments in the first place.

The article seems to blame the average technophilic Slashdotter type for what are really the views and actions of the good old fashioned special interests. You simply can't form a coherent argument when you agree with the points but they're being incorrectly used to attack you.

While most of us would agree that the internet and digital media create jurisdictional problems and other special legal issues, it's really the old guard (and their lawyers) who are trying to use "cyberspace" as an excuse to change the rules, either because:

A) they don't understand the new technology and competitive environment;
B) they understand it but know it will put them out of business; or
C) simply because they happen to see an opportunity to take advantage of the uninformed.

Instead, the people they attack are the very ones who would prefer to see the DMCA thrown out, freedom of speech upheld, public participation, fair-use, theft and damages to mean actual property stolen or broken (vs. just looked at), etc. - that is, the people blamed are instead the very one's who most want to see the old laws (and freedoms) apply to new technology.

New technology has always created new legal issues but the push for the most drastic and unreasonable new interpretations has and continues to come from the soon-to-be-extinct buggy whip manufacturers - not the technologists and visionaries. These lawyers need to check the facts and restate their arguments by correctly attributing ideas and motivations to the proper parties.

There's a difference...

[Cognitive Dissident]

...between claiming an 'exception' merely to be different, or to exploit the fact that this is something new, and making different interpretations because actual use and practice is different than in past cases.

The current exemption from taxes, for example, is simply a 'perk' of being new. It's no more difficult to tax internet business than mail-order business. The mail-order companies are just exploting the disorder of the states. If the states get together or Federal Govt. ever gets its act together and passes a uniform tax code for mail order companies, they will be taxed. Same for internet 'e-tailing' or whatever fancy name you want to invent. International mail-order is also no different from international online transactions.

But there are very real differences in daily life brought on by new technologies. Back when direct telephone connections to homes and businesses was new there was a hue and cry about criminals being able to conduct their nefarious business without being subject to surveillance, very much like the current paranoia about internet fraud and pedophiles, etc... The police used to be heavy practitioners of 'eavesdropping' before the telephone. But there was also recognition of how the technology could be abused to increase police powers in unacceptable ways. So we didn't setup a central phone listening system like some dictatorship, we crafted a reasonable system of requiring police to get evidence that someone needed to be snooped on and get a warrant. We think this is 'routine' now, but it was a very new and strange thing in the early years of the last century.

Re:There's a difference...

[alizard]

So we didn't setup a central phone listening system like some dictatorship, we crafted a reasonable system of requiring police to get evidence that someone needed to be snooped on and get a warrant. We think this is 'routine' now, but it was a very new and strange thing in the early years of the last century.

Hope the above was meant as satire. I suggest you do a Web search on CALEA. It is the law of the land and mandates the central phone/data listening system.

Or search here on the recent theft (confiscation is just a prettier synonym) of PCs by FBI and police on a complaint about cablemodem bandwidth uncapping by a cable company without any pretense of due process.

Hah, Phonespace is filled with special regulations

[westfirst]

Where's this guy living? Hypespace?

I would love it if his editors applied the treat-cyberspace-like-meatspace and killed his column. Then we wouldn't have the WSJ churning out endless blather about the effect of the new economy. There are no columns devoted to the steel industry or the building supply industry. Yet, this guy keeps going on and on about the so-called Boom Town. (Can't someone explain to him the problem with the column's title?) If he wants to treat cyberspace like everything else, he should leave the reporting to industry rags, not flashy columns.

And the premise is all mixed up.
There are tons of new regulations introduced for each new technology. There's a special category called "wire fraud" for people who use the phone system to defraud people. Transmitting gambling information across state lines is a crime and that law was introduced to stop people from phoning their bookie, not going to their bookie's website.

The main reason that cyberspace is different is the only thing moving from place to place is information and freedom of speech is protected by many constitutions. So any law regulating the Internet often runs afoul of these laws.

It would be nice if the regular laws from the world applied to cyberspace. How much did Kevin Mitnick steal? How much damage did he really cause? I would love to see concrete analysis applied. The fact is that most hacking efforts cause less damage than most grafiti. In most cases, the damage can be reversed by running some backup tapes. I realize this takes time. I realize that it's pain. Hey, some jerk broke into my car last week and it caused me more pain and suffering than any hacker.

Anonymous Proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

Host Port Latency (Fetch) Last Checked (CT).94.151.52 8080 78 ms 07/01 17:49 5.167.152.3 80 101 ms 07/01 17:46 24.222.0.11 80 128 ms 07/01 18:54 65.114.141.67 80 138 ms 07/01 17:46 63.91.7.195 80 176 ms 07/01 17:42 65.167.152.4 80 199 ms 07/01 17:46 206.45.128.29 80 200 ms 07/01 16:58 209.225.8.51 80 214 ms 07/01 17:08 65.112.121.29 80 215 ms 07/01 17:46 149.221.246.2 80 218 ms 07/01 18:55 156.3.145.249 8080 220 ms 07/01 17:49 64.2.255.77 8080 221 ms 07/01 17:44 64.107.161.131 80 224 ms 07/01 17:42 200.66.191.1 80 229 ms 07/01 17:47 156.46.52.5 3128 236 ms 07/01 17:47 66.54.171.212 80 237 ms 07/01 17:47 200.207.87.224 8080 248 ms 07/01 18:02 198.143.67.16 80 254 ms 07/01 17:56 64.204.141.110 80 259 ms 07/01 17:44 65.106.81.114 8080 263 ms 07/01 17:47 148.233.159.25 3128 264 ms 07/01 18:55 128.121.249.133 8080 269 ms 07/01 17:48 128.121.235.254 8080 278 ms 07/01 17:48 195.59.64.130 8080 281 ms 07/01 18:54 65.16.42.77 80 286 ms 07/01 17:46 64.46.161.11 80 292 ms 07/01 17:44 65.117.130.132 80 300 ms 07/01 17:46 63.241.92.46 80 309 ms 07/01 17:41 64.5.130.10 80 313 ms 07/01 17:44 202.106.166.2 8080 345 ms 07/01 18:02 149.156.5.242 8080 349 ms 07/01 18:55 65.107.121.66 8080 351 ms 07/01 17:45 64.39.30.208 80 354 ms 07/01 17:44 168.171.60.44 8080 355 ms 07/01 17:47 151.99.209.166 8080 355 ms 07/01 17:49 211.110.7.237 8080 356 ms 07/01 16:20 155.99.25.11 80 356 ms 07/01 17:49 65.167.144.211 80 357 ms 07/01 17:46 0.242.28.196 80 360 ms 07/01 17:59 212.89.16.35 8080 372 ms 07/01 17:27 148.233.159.58 80 373 ms 07/01 18:55 213.76.135.98 8080 374 ms 07/01 18:50 213.11.160.98 80 375 ms 07/01 17:27 65.192.49.250 80 375 ms 07/01 17:46 211.251.174.1 8080 376 ms 07/01 18:37 209.177.232.34 3128 379 ms 07/01 17:07 216.207.208.6 8080 389 ms 07/01 18:53 65.106.81.115 80 391 ms 07/01 17:45 210.181.4.193 80 392 ms 07/01 17:14 210.217.183.146 80 397 ms 07/01 17:16 200.207.119.80 3128 399 ms 07/01 18:02 210.161.222.66 8080 404 ms 07/01 17:12 207.193.122.244 80 407 ms 07/01 17:00 209.180.208.4 80 418 ms 07/01 17:07 147.162.44.90 8000 420 ms 07/01 17:48 210.162.241.163 8080 427 ms 07/01 17:12 202.187.24.241 3128 432 ms 07/01 18:03 210.181.4.31 80 433 ms 07/01 17:14 210.116.116.52 8080 438 ms 07/01 16:19 209.158.167.98 80 447 ms 07/01 17:07 213.11.160.97 80 447 ms 07/01 17:27 204.186.151.5 80 455 ms 07/01 16:56 210.166.36.74 3128 455 ms 07/01 17:13 210.178.25.129 3128 461 ms 07/01 17:14 212.208.97.251 8080 464 ms 07/01 17:47 210.102.176.5 3128 470 ms 07/01 17:10 210.217.183.144 80 472 ms 07/01 17:16 206.19.38.189 3128 479 ms 07/01 16:57 207.236.181.163 8000 482 ms 07/01 17:02 210.181.4.34 80 482 ms 07/01 17:14 210.217.183.147 80 482 ms 07/01 17:16 195.40.4.197 8080 486 ms 07/01 18:54 194.95.86.206 3128 486 ms 07/01 17:53 198.143.67.15 80 487 ms 07/01 17:56 63.241.92.44 80 493 ms 07/01 17:41 62.128.62.66 8080 498 ms 07/01 16:24 209.218.230.133 80 519 ms 07/01 17:08 210.218.51.11 8080 527 ms 07/01 17:17 200.62.131.254 8080 531 ms 07/01 18:02 213.0.245.72 8080 532 ms 07/01 17:27 211.21.97.234 3128 540 ms 07/01 16:21 64.42.48.170 80 542 ms 07/01 17:44 205.158.37.2 3128 544 ms 07/01 16:57 200.242.5.175 80 545 ms 07/01 18:00 203.94.138.226 8080 556 ms 07/01 16:55 130.241.120.120 8000 557 ms 07/01 17:48 200.242.5.11 80 566 ms 07/01 18:00 200.55.7.235 80 573 ms 07/01 17:47 200.242.28.198 80 573 ms 07/01 17:59 203.62.199.7 8080 587 ms 07/01 18:51 200.242.5.192 80 590 ms 07/01 18:01 200.242.5.113 80 591 ms 07/01 18:00 65.105.200.50 80 595 ms 07/01 17:45 200.242.28.242 80 597 ms 07/01 17:59 200.242.5.115 80 598 ms 07/01 18:00 204.101.179.26 80 606 ms 07/01 16:55 210.169.231.21 8080 608 ms 07/01 17:13 200.242.5.18 80 609 ms 07/01 18:00 207.144.127.149 80 619 ms 07/01 16:59 200.219.79.75 3128 632 ms 07/01 17:57 209.110.70.11 80 634 ms 07/01 17:06 62.159.235.234 8080 634 ms 07/01 17:36 202.106.184.244 8080 634 ms 07/01 18:02 200.242.5.122 80 635 ms 07/01 18:00 210.217.183.148 8080 640 ms 07/01 17:16 199.171.216.4 8000 645 ms 07/01 16:42 206.28.40.125 3128 658 ms 07/01 16:58 200.30.158.253 80 659 ms 07/01 18:01 64.0.242.42 3128 660 ms 07/01 17:42 195.226.230.33 80 665 ms 07/01 16:40 128.173.41.38 3128 683 ms 07/01 17:47 200.242.28.131 80 683 ms 07/01 17:59 211.236.159.150 8080 708 ms 07/01 18:51 66.54.171.210 80 711 ms 07/01 17:47 24.111.31.37 8080 712 ms 07/01 18:35 207.248.128.76 80 720 ms 07/01 17:03 207.159.184.230 8080 726 ms 07/01 16:59 210.204.118.194 8080 727 ms 07/01 17:15 210.111.232.146 8080 728 ms 07/01 17:10 128.121.235.252 8080 729 ms 07/01 17:48 202.22.63.21 8080 734 ms 07/01 18:03 202.57.116.142 8080 737 ms 07/01 18:05 210.145.42.123 3128 742 ms 07/01 17:11 212.160.104.98 3128 742 ms 07/01 17:22 200.242.28.234 80 746 ms 07/01 17:59 217.57.160.156 80 749 ms 07/01 18:50 206.101.72.14 80 753 ms 07/01 16:57 207.224.47.49 8080 770 ms 07/01 17:01 143.107.224.73 3128 771 ms 07/01 18:55 211.108.90.40 80 776 ms 07/01 16:20 210.103.11.251 8080 778 ms 07/01 17:10 210.168.234.114 80 778 ms 07/01 17:13 64.173.218.26 8080 780 ms 07/01 17:44 210.181.194.190 80 784 ms 07/01 17:14 66.45.34.102 80 801 ms 07/01 17:46 213.11.85.249 80 802 ms 07/01 17:27 207.224.24.133 80 806 ms 07/01 17:01 216.20.10.33 8080 815 ms 07/01 18:05 203.12.148.169 8080 815 ms 07/01 18:41 204.210.206.3 80 816 ms 07/01 16:56 209.123.57.107 80 817 ms 07/01 17:06 200.205.174.194 3128 819 ms 07/01 17:57 209.170.16.97 8080 820 ms 07/01 18:43 200.242.28.246 80 832 ms 07/01 17:59 212.190.88.186 80 835 ms 07/01 17:23 206.82.224.48 80 836 ms 07/01 18:12 200.223.23.4 80 838 ms 07/01 17:57 210.154.104.126 80 848 ms 07/01 17:12 200.51.40.34 80 852 ms 07/01 18:51 209.198.148.34 80 860 ms 07/01 17:08 195.15.93.193 80 860 ms 07/01 18:37 210.124.186.130 80 861 ms 07/01 16:20 207.199.171.9 80 870 ms 07/01 17:00 200.241.212.34 80 870 ms 07/01 17:58 212.69.75.194 80 871 ms 07/01 17:27 213.10.67.114 80 871 ms 07/01 17:27 209.80.255.74 80 874 ms 07/01 17:09 210.232.197.130 80 880 ms 07/01 17:18 66.54.171.211 80 880 ms 07/01 17:47 66.121.247.171 80 887 ms 07/01 17:46 63.120.148.106 80 892 ms 07/01 17:39 64.105.91.186 80 893 ms 07/01 17:42 210.104.213.3 8080 894 ms 07/01 17:10 210.155.22.34 8080 897 ms 07/01 18:14 200.242.5.250 80 898 ms 07/01 18:01 210.217.183.145 80 900 ms 07/01 17:16 200.242.5.100 80 902 ms 07/01 18:00 206.45.128.27 80 903 ms 07/01 16:58 210.238.197.130 80 909 ms 07/01 16:20 200.242.14.103 80 916 ms 07/01 17:58 210.181.1.172 8080 917 ms 07/01 17:14 202.184.25.8 8080 925 ms 07/01 18:03 196.40.3.74 3128 926 ms 07/01 17:56 209.182.73.114 80 927 ms 07/01 17:07 210.160.187.50 80 927 ms 07/01 17:12 195.147.126.194 8080 930 ms 07/01 16:39 211.1.156.252 8080 931 ms 07/01 18:35 212.160.185.145 3128 933 ms 07/01 17:48 203.83.73.10 80 936 ms 07/01 16:55 210.248.215.114 80 942 ms 07/01 17:19 64.69.112.130 8080 942 ms 07/01 17:44 195.208.40.240 3128 949 ms 07/01 18:37 194.78.155.240 80 962 ms 07/01 18:06 207.63.101.163 8080 971 ms 07/01 17:03 210.217.183.142 80 971 ms 07/01 17:16 202.241.195.201 80 971 ms 07/01 18:04 212.31.79.104 80 972 ms 07/01 17:25 200.242.28.135 80 974 ms 07/01 17:59 63.225.132.53 80 976 ms 07/01 17:39 207.144.127.148 80 982 ms 07/01 16:59 62.154.241.50 8080 988 ms 07/01 17:36 210.162.113.82 80 992 ms 07/01 17:12 206.86.40.16 3128 998 ms 07/01 16:59 212.19.37.202 8080 998 ms 07/01 17:23 200.206.215.27 3128 998 ms 07/01 18:02 63.236.33.4 80 999 ms 07/01 17:40 199.217.175.49 80 1006 ms 07/01 16:43 207.224.50.241 3128 1016 ms 07/01 17:01 200.61.128.45 8080 1019 ms 07/01 18:53 210.166.148.42 8080 1021 ms 07/01 17:13 211.34.154.193 3128 1023 ms 07/01 16:21 203.149.2.68 8080 1026 ms 07/01 16:49 207.236.59.162 80 1028 ms 07/01 17:02 200.242.5.103 80 1028 ms 07/01 18:00 207.190.38.197 80 1031 ms 07/01 17:00 212.116.174.197 8080 1038 ms 07/01 16:21 210.217.233.11 8080 1041 ms 07/01 17:16 210.190.73.146 80 1047 ms 07/01 17:15 210.204.109.194 8080 1049 ms 07/01 17:15 209.88.128.9 80 1055 ms 07/01 18:14 211.114.237.129 8080 1056 ms 07/01 18:45 200.185.63.247 80 1063 ms 07/01 19:05 207.20.9.5 80 1066 ms 07/01 17:00 199.217.175.2 80 1069 ms 07/01 16:43 203.47.157.66 8080 1069 ms 07/01 18:09 203.43.164.213 80 1072 ms 07/01 16:53 63.241.92.41 80 1072 ms 07/01 17:41 202.111.160.242 80 1073 ms 07/01 18:03 200.242.14.186 80 1076 ms 07/01 17:59 139.130.55.70 3128 1080 ms 07/01 17:48 139.130.163.201 3128 1081 ms 07/01 16:32 168.209.246.117 80 1082 ms 07/01 16:33 209.191.2.5 3128 1084 ms 07/01 18:13 212.97.63.66 8080 1085 ms 07/01 18:49 12.16.40.66 3128 1085 ms 07/01 17:47 193.112.136.7 80 1091 ms 07/01 18:57 207.228.89.43 80 1098 ms 07/01 18:12 207.253.238.34 80 1111 ms 07/01 17:03 210.217.183.143 80 1114 ms 07/01 17:16 212.31.79.102 80 1118 ms 07/01 17:25 157.181.66.2 80 1118 ms 07/01 17:49 202.66.32.243 80 1124 ms 07/01 18:05 207.219.100.35 80 1127 ms 07/01 17:01 204.49.227.117 7046 1132 ms 07/01 16:17 64.132.123.76 80 1133 ms 07/01 17:43 216.56.24.38 80 1136 ms 07/01 17:34 64.123.254.97 80 1146 ms 07/01 17:43 211.102.2.206 8080 1152 ms 07/01 18:35 206.154.224.4 80 1155 ms 07/01 16:57 63.225.181.249 80 1158 ms 07/01 17:40 65.45.117.19 80 1162 ms 07/01 17:46 213.224.83.27 80 1165 ms 07/01 16:25 62.108.19.93 80 1165 ms 07/01 17:35 62.159.42.173 80 1166 ms 07/01 17:37 209.77.220.19 8080 1170 ms 07/01 16:30 199.217.175.50 80 1176 ms 07/01 16:43 63.236.33.7 80 1177 ms 07/01 17:40 204.253.54.253 80 1180 ms 07/01 16:56 210.100.206.2 8080 1182 ms 07/01 16:53 193.170.210.66 80 1189 ms 07/01 18:58 195.224.236.170 8080 1190 ms 07/01 16:40 200.242.14.1 80 1191 ms 07/01 17:58 210.218.66.11 8080 1193 ms 07/01 17:17 61.127.205.98 80 1194 ms 07/01 17:35 200.242.14.119 80 1194 ms 07/01 17:58 210.146.23.60 80 1195 ms 07/01 18:14 206.74.120.68 80 1195 ms 07/01 16:58 212.27.216.175 3128 1196 ms 07/01 18:41 212.19.73.21 80 1198 ms 07/01 17:23 209.202.56.108 8080 1199 ms 07/01 16:18 210.190.53.114 80 1200 ms 07/01 17:14 211.21.218.13 3128 1203 ms 07/01 18:37 202.60.224.231 80 1204 ms 07/01 18:41 202.109.12.41 8080 1209 ms 07/01 18:03 199.126.65.246 3128 1210 ms 07/01 16:42 206.254.221.6 80 1210 ms 07/01 16:57 200.242.5.124 80 1210 ms 07/01 18:00 212.187.236.25 80 1215 ms 07/01 17:23 195.248.193.197 3128 1215 ms 07/01 17:55 210.204.218.66 8080 1217 ms 07/01 17:15 207.150.137.130 8000 1220 ms 07/01 16:59 64.105.36.82 80 1220 ms 07/01 17:42 66.47.133.210 80 1221 ms 07/01 17:47 63.65.152.11 80 1224 ms 07/01 17:41 64.168.149.222 80 1226 ms 07/01 17:43 202.52.68.51 3128 1226 ms 07/01 18:04 206.78.191.100 80 1226 ms 07/01 18:11 206.70.251.252 80 1231 ms 07/01 16:58 200.183.175.131 80 1233 ms 07/01 19:04 203.198.208.169 8080 1233 ms 07/01 16:51 200.242.14.111 80 1233 ms 07/01 17:58 207.248.133.20 3128 1237 ms 07/01 18:13 210.97.13.2 3128 1237 ms 07/01 18:45 210.127.227.251 8000 1245 ms 07/01 17:11 64.123.233.124 80 1258 ms 07/01 17:43 203.146.166.131 80 1264 ms 07/01 16:48 207.89.128.20 80 1265 ms 07/01 16:18 210.145.59.130 80 1281 ms 07/01 17:11 211.5.171.170 3128 1283 ms 07/01 18:37 200.215.44.21 3128 1283 ms 07/01 17:57 62.153.100.45 3128 1286 ms 07/01 17:35 209.184.112.50 3128 1288 ms 07/01 18:54 203.255.248.50 80 1295 ms 07/01 16:52 207.172.28.145 80 1297 ms 07/01 17:00 200.242.14.130 80 1297 ms 07/01 17:58 209.121.164.68 80 1298 ms 07/01 17:06 211.91.218.8 80 1298 ms 07/01 18:35 63.224.95.2 80 1300 ms 07/01 17:39 207.229.10.88 8000 1301 ms 07/01 17:02 209.11.25.1 80 1307 ms 07/01 18:51 202.53.254.219 3128 1307 ms 07/01 18:04 200.242.5.249 80 1308 ms 07/01 18:01 203.52.153.227 80 1309 ms 07/01 16:54 63.241.92.38 80 1314 ms 07/01 17:40 204.152.142.169 80 1315 ms 07/01 16:56 207.229.10.80 8000 1316 ms 07/01 17:01 203.73.227.82 80 1318 ms 07/01 16:55 168.10.31.4 80 1319 ms 07/01 18:57 207.230.222.170 80 1319 ms 07/01 17:02 199.104.82.21 3128 1325 ms 07/01 16:42 168.209.0.25 80 1328 ms 07/01 16:33 130.241.97.167 8000 1330 ms 07/01 17:48 200.206.138.49 3128 1333 ms 07/01 18:02 207.235.189.67 80 1334 ms 07/01 18:13 61.127.197.4 80 1337 ms 07/01 18:32 210.92.12.24 8080 1342 ms 07/01 18:16 210.217.183.1 80 1345 ms 07/01 17:16 203.52.153.226 80 1347 ms 07/01 16:54 194.63.222.241 80 1348 ms 07/01 18:55 66.46.35.178 80 1349 ms 07/01 17:46 203.49.98.242 80 1350 ms 07/01 16:54 205.213.5.3 80 1352 ms 07/01 16:17 216.56.8.234 80 1354 ms 07/01 17:34 195.39.134.84 80 1355 ms 07/01 16:41 212.21.170.129 8080 1355 ms 07/01 17:23 210.179.224.248 8080 1360 ms 07/01 18:44 211.7.76.253 3128 1364 ms 07/01 16:21 213.121.175.194 80 1364 ms 07/01 18:23 168.209.246.158 80 1366 ms 07/01 16:34 200.64.191.51 3128 1371 ms 07/01 16:14 203.135.30.226 80 1373 ms 07/01 16:48 198.63.184.222 8000 1375 ms 07/01 18:13 63.228.59.17 80 1375 ms 07/01 17:40 157.150.117.129 8080 1375 ms 07/01 17:49 216.128.197.19 80 1377 ms 07/01 16:25 202.185.231.211 8080 1382 ms 07/01 16:47 63.100.68.142 80 1382 ms 07/01 17:39 202.186.33.186 80 1383 ms 07/01 18:03 202.92.123.245 3128 1383 ms 07/01 18:41 213.41.14.212 80 1385 ms 07/01 17:29 210.97.121.1 3128 1386 ms 07/01 18:44 207.246.105.209 80 1392 ms 07/01 17:03 210.178.71.117 80 1392 ms 07/01 17:14 62.153.100.42 3128 1394 ms 07/01 17:35 195.242.36.3 3128 1395 ms 07/01 16:41 200.242.14.184 80 1397 ms 07/01 17:59 210.239.164.113 80 1399 ms 07/01 17:18 212.6.96.254 3128 1408 ms 07/01 17:27 210.92.100.132 80 1410 ms 07/01 17:20 200.48.153.7 80 1410 ms 07/01 18:01 202.110.59.141 80 1411 ms 07/01 18:35 202.5.161.49 8080 1415 ms 07/01 18:04 168.209.247.116 80 1419 ms 07/01 16:34 200.242.43.210 80 1422 ms 07/01 18:00 208.10.115.238 8080 1425 ms 07/01 18:42 216.3.83.122 3128 1428 ms 07/01 16:26 210.163.156.178 8080 1428 ms 07/01 17:12 4.35.87.234 3128 1428 ms 07/01 18:31 203.44.169.131 8080 1437 ms 07/01 16:53 195.243.50.53 3128 1443 ms 07/01 16:41 209.162.215.11 80 1448 ms 07/01 17:07 202.29.15.4 8080 1455 ms 07/01 18:29 203.135.0.66 8080 1459 ms 07/01 18:52 208.202.241.66 80 1468 ms 07/01 16:30 203.135.21.162 8080 1477 ms 07/01 16:48 194.108.220.97 3128 1487 ms 07/01 18:53 195.47.118.71 3128 1497 ms 07/01 19:01 200.212.202.124 3128 1498 ms 07/01 17:57 204.255.205.66 8000 1516 ms 07/01 18:11 204.210.204.8 80 1517 ms 07/01 16:56 218.30.16.115 80 1517 ms 07/01 18:29 193.58.194.231 3128 1518 ms 07/01 18:58 210.218.14.11 8080 1518 ms 07/01 17:17 210.234.110.254 80 1518 ms 07/01 17:18 195.161.173.58 3128 1518 ms 07/01 17:55 193.101.75.249 8000 1522 ms 07/01 17:51 194.212.26.129 3128 1525 ms 07/01 18:22 206.47.168.101 80 1532 ms 07/01 16:58 203.163.146.71 3128 1534 ms 07/01 18:06 212.234.138.133 80 1534 ms 07/01 18:46 200.207.119.22 3128 1539 ms 07/01 18:02 209.139.35.2 8080 1540 ms 07/01 16:18 217.34.194.49 80 1541 ms 07/01 18:11 212.116.157.123 8080 1544 ms 07/01 16:21 193.51.131.2 3128 1547 ms 07/01 17:52 203.162.47.218 3128 1550 ms 07/01 18:42 168.243.13.1 3128 1551 ms 07/01 17:50 194.108.51.123 8080 1552 ms 07/01 17:52 195.182.93.213 3128 1558 ms 07/01 16:39 203.146.245.130 80 1560 ms 07/01 16:48 207.66.188.10 80 1563 ms 07/01 17:04 204.184.159.252 80 1566 ms 07/01 16:56 210.164.74.2 8080 1566 ms 07/01 17:13 210.103.6.129 80 1571 ms 07/01 17:10 200.181.57.66 80 1572 ms 07/01 19:04 212.88.156.50 3128 1576 ms 07/01 18:22 206.45.128.30 80 1581 ms 07/01 16:58 210.120.128.117 8080 1586 ms 07/01 17:11 208.248.194.14 80 1589 ms 07/01 18:32 61.9.224.141 80 1594 ms 07/01 18:53 192.118.52.251 3128 1594 ms 07/01 18:57 210.248.114.146 8080 1596 ms 07/01 16:32 203.167.83.133 80 1596 ms 07/01 18:06 204.118.209.4 80 1597 ms 07/01 16:56 216.57.132.67 80 1599 ms 07/01 17:34 210.78.139.174 3128 1599 ms 07/01 18:15 195.226.230.32 80 1600 ms 07/01 16:40 63.229.160.11 80 1600 ms 07/01 17:40 63.119.30.34 80 1604 ms 07/01 17:39 209.11.103.129 80 1605 ms 07/01 17:06 212.33.64.129 8080 1607 ms 07/01 17:25 168.209.246.37 80 1612 ms 07/01 17:50 200.23.209.209 8080 1613 ms 07/01 18:06 210.220.73.25 80 1619 ms 07/01 18:52 213.130.16.33 3128 1621 ms 07/01 17:28 168.209.247.222 80 1623 ms 07/01 17:50 210.145.108.222 80 1625 ms 07/01 17:11 194.63.231.229 80 1632 ms 07/01 17:53 203.80.238.205 80 1635 ms 07/01 16:55 210.95.127.129 8080 1643 ms 07/01 18:44 199.106.212.3 80 1649 ms 07/01 18:38 212.43.196.81 8080 1655 ms 07/01 16:24 63.109.208.6 80 1656 ms 07/01 17:39 202.17.25.170 3128 1657 ms 07/01 18:40 64.83.129.10 7021 1658 ms 07/01 16:30 203.135.21.35 8080 1659 ms 07/01 18:30 210.255.111.19 80 1660 ms 07/01 17:19 148.233.111.232 80 1661 ms 07/01 18:18 207.207.35.195 8000 1662 ms 07/01 18:12 200.242.14.125 80 1666 ms 07/01 17:58 199.104.82.20 3128 1668 ms 07/01 16:41 207.232.147.97 80 1669 ms 07/01 18:12 208.158.122.121 3128 1670 ms 07/01 18:11 64.83.129.11 7021 1670 ms 07/01 16:29 216.128.197.18 80 1670 ms 07/01 17:30 209.236.124.21 80 1678 ms 07/01 16:18 203.136.221.146 8080 1689 ms 07/01 18:06 212.160.74.12 8080 1690 ms 07/01 18:39 211.155.243.99 80 1692 ms 07/01 18:44 203.55.89.25 8080 1697 ms 07/01 16:55 196.11.235.50 8080 1698 ms 07/01 17:56 207.229.10.82 8000 1701 ms 07/01 17:01 203.194.146.23 80 1704 ms 07/01 18:52 156.3.85.200 80 1707 ms 07/01 17:49 63.100.235.14 8080 1708 ms 07/01 17:38 208.23.102.254 3128 1710 ms 07/01 18:43 210.177.86.228 80 1711 ms 07/01 17:13 200.37.203.3 80 1711 ms 07/01 18:01 24.116.173.199 8080 1713 ms 07/01 18:29 193.126.254.62 80 1717 ms 07/01 16:36 63.101.138.147 8080 1722 ms 07/01 17:39 205.235.48.14 8080 1726 ms 07/01 18:11 200.242.4.14 80 1729 ms 07/01 16:13 206.9.112.109 8080 1730 ms 07/01 18:54 210.97.112.254 8080 1738 ms 07/01 18:44 193.107.50.98 80 1739 ms 07/01 16:36 203.134.120.219 3128 1740 ms 07/01 18:09 168.209.246.152 80 1747 ms 07/01 16:34 203.39.24.194 8080 1749 ms 07/01 16:53 200.30.30.90 80 1753 ms 07/01 18:13 207.232.135.195 80 1753 ms 07/01 18:12 195.226.230.37 80 1754 ms 07/01 16:40 199.104.82.235 3128 1754 ms 07/01 17:56 212.21.165.145 3128 1756 ms 07/01 18:40 213.224.83.19 80 1756 ms 07/01 16:25 168.210.40.2 8080 1756 ms 07/01 17:50 156.3.62.76 8080 1757 ms 07/01 17:49 208.139.96.96 80 1760 ms 07/01 17:05 64.163.20.6 80 1767 ms 07/01 17:43 207.70.183.76 3128 1768 ms 07/01 17:05 193.188.97.152 80 1770 ms 07/01 18:58 212.82.218.170 3128 1771 ms 07/01 18:22 202.186.101.151 8080 1775 ms 07/01 16:47 207.232.225.18 80 1779 ms 07/01 18:12 211.57.104.2 3128 1781 ms 07/01 18:38 63.227.49.113 80 1782 ms 07/01 17:40 63.241.92.45 80 1783 ms 07/01 17:41 216.20.10.37 8080 1785 ms 07/01 18:05 207.228.76.86 8000 1791 ms 07/01 17:01 209.23.81.59 8000 1801 ms 07/01 18:13 210.179.92.2 8080 1806 ms 07/01 16:20 210.217.183.141 80 1807 ms 07/01 17:16 63.88.93.4 8080 1808 ms 07/01 17:42 202.138.208.173 80 1811 ms 07/01 18:03 148.233.229.235 80 1813 ms 07/01 18:18 200.30.47.70 8080 1816 ms 07/01 18:09 216.253.101.14 81 1816 ms 07/01 18:50 202.5.162.200 8080 1816 ms 07/01 18:04 147.162.73.29 8000 1817 ms 07/01 17:49 202.110.216.73 80 1827 ms 07/01 18:03 204.253.56.218 8080 1827 ms 07/01 18:10 12.20.146.10 80 1830 ms 07/01 16:32 168.209.247.128 80 1837 ms 07/01 16:35 207.232.225.12 80 1837 ms 07/01 18:12 210.111.232.211 8080 1843 ms 07/01 17:10 62.153.108.67 80 1843 ms 07/01 17:35 211.75.199.2 3128 1845 ms 07/01 17:21 12.3.218.6 8080 1846 ms 07/01 18:55 210.162.84.162 80 1846 ms 07/01 17:12 203.127.150.66 80 1850 ms 07/01 16:48 216.112.227.130 8080 1858 ms 07/01 18:11 12.8.132.8 8080 1869 ms 07/01 18:53 168.209.246.171 80 1870 ms 07/01 16:34 212.155.109.161 80 1871 ms 07/01 17:22 130.113.95.88 8000 1891 ms 07/01 17:48 168.11.36.5 80 1894 ms 07/01 16:30 200.206.165.203 80 1897 ms 07/01 16:46 200.242.14.180 80 1903 ms 07/01 17:58 204.228.81.68 8000 1903 ms 07/01 18:10 128.101.98.26 8000 1904 ms 07/01 16:25 64.123.185.66 80 1906 ms 07/01 18:51 213.29.40.5 3128 1907 ms 07/01 18:49 168.209.246.141 80 1908 ms 07/01 16:33 207.224.223.2 80 1909 ms 07/01 17:01 207.63.101.162 8080 1909 ms 07/01 17:03 203.238.211.217 80 1912 ms 07/01 18:07 210.249.38.243 80 1922 ms 07/01 17:19 195.222.193.114 3128 1924 ms 07/01 18:05 207.4.127.253 80 1932 ms 07/01 16:18 168.209.247.184 80 1937 ms 07/01 16:35 212.48.115.6 3128 1937 ms 07/01 17:26 202.57.140.7 3128 1937 ms 07/01 18:05 200.204.125.170 80 1938 ms 07/01 19:05 210.204.233.34 8080 1939 ms 07/01 17:15 62.172.76.194 80 1939 ms 07/01 17:37 159.149.160.1 80 1939 ms 07/01 17:50 196.26.17.130 3128 1941 ms 07/01 16:41 209.205.72.2 3128 1942 ms 07/01 17:08 195.150.132.210 8080 1944 ms 07/01 19:00 64.73.75.10 80 1950 ms 07/01 17:45 195.222.202.30 8080 1953 ms 07/01 18:05 207.242.11.50 8080 1953 ms 07/01 17:02 213.193.0.44 80 1956 ms 07/01 16:25 213.16.133.130 80 1963 ms 07/01 17:28 213.189.83.101 80 1963 ms 07/01 17:28 63.229.179.105 80 1963 ms 07/01 17:40 62.159.63.135 3128 1966 ms 07/01 17:37 195.145.152.94 80 1968 ms 07/01 16:38 204.94.195.3 8080 1970 ms 07/01 16:56 210.160.201.242 80 1973 ms 07/01 17:12 200.21.215.240 3128 1975 ms 07/01 16:13 61.127.234.18 80 1975 ms 07/01 17:35 210.217.237.139 8080 1978 ms 07/01 17:17 207.236.70.2 80 1979 ms 07/01 17:02 205.247.112.166 8080 1989 ms 07/01 18:11 203.139.134.145 80 1990 ms 07/01 16:48 203.148.251.235 3128 1990 ms 07/01 16:49 200.248.11.5 3128 1991 ms 07/01 16:13 212.249.8.30 3128 1991 ms 07/01 17:24 212.178.7.52 80 1997 ms 07/01 16:30 207.165.142.1 8000 1997 ms 07/01 16:59 64.160.35.189 80 1997 ms 07/01 17:43 199.126.127.5 3128 2000 ms 07/01 16:42 200.207.158.88 3128 2013 ms 07/01 16:12 62.153.147.98 8080 2014 ms 07/01 17:36 210.254.228.2 8080 2015 ms 07/01 16:20 203.59.131.45 8080 2017 ms 07/01 18:31 63.241.92.42 80 2019 ms 07/01 17:41 62.153.145.202 80 2023 ms 07/01 17:36 202.186.33.131 80 2023 ms 07/01 18:03 204.60.97.2 80 2025 ms 07/01 18:11 195.243.124.114 80 2026 ms 07/01 18:12 212.20.71.227 80 2042 ms 07/01 17:23 193.156.56.188 8000 2045 ms 07/01 17:51 193.188.101.146 80 2047 ms 07/01 16:36 217.126.83.185 8080 2049 ms 07/01 18:28 213.56.84.33 80 2053 ms 07/01 17:29 64.89.172.171 80 2055 ms 07/01 17:45 203.148.251.226 8080 2057 ms 07/01 16:49 210.8.92.2 80 2059 ms 07/01 17:20 64.51.98.130 8080 2066 ms 07/01 17:44 62.159.230.102 8080 2069 ms 07/01 17:36 213.14.46.199 80 2073 ms 07/01 18:24 148.233.159.249 80 2079 ms 07/01 18:18 198.189.125.186 80 2086 ms 07/01 19:03 200.28.78.74 3128 2088 ms 07/01 18:28 203.234.17.49 80 2094 ms 07/01 16:52 200.27.112.195 80 2096 ms 07/01 18:39 212.27.195.141 3128 2099 ms 07/01 18:41 193.158.3.122 80 2105 ms 07/01 18:57 216.20.29.98 80 2108 ms 07/01 17:32 12.28.232.28 8080 2112 ms 07/01 18:54 168.209.246.185 80 2112 ms 07/01 16:34 193.2.65.204 80 2116 ms 07/01 16:37 206.72.78.171 80 2127 ms 07/01 16:58 209.19.150.21 8080 2129 ms 07/01 18:16 216.125.50.3 80 2132 ms 07/01 17:30 168.171.60.45 8080 2134 ms 07/01 18:57 200.242.14.181 80 2135 ms 07/01 17:58 63.227.212.97 3128 2135 ms 07/01 18:47 64.59.200.44 80 2136 ms 07/01 16:29 194.95.95.94 3128 2136 ms 07/01 17:53 216.122.20.224 80 2140 ms 07/01 17:29 216.186.42.103 80 2140 ms 07/01 17:32 209.88.97.81 80 2146 ms 07/01 17:09 210.103.14.123 8080 2153 ms 07/01 17:10 63.73.27.2 80 2154 ms 07/01 17:41 193.220.82.14 80 2154 ms 07/01 17:51 130.241.173.10 8000 2155 ms 07/01 17:48 203.53.95.100 80 2156 ms 07/01 16:54 203.198.153.200 3128 2157 ms 07/01 16:51 199.182.84.250 80 2160 ms 07/01 16:42 195.226.230.36 80 2163 ms 07/01 19:00 210.160.153.114 8000 2163 ms 07/01 17:12 195.184.102.197 80 2166 ms 07/01 16:39 209.58.28.210 80 2167 ms 07/01 18:33 210.100.140.252 8080 2168 ms 07/01 16:19 216.39.66.240 80 2168 ms 07/01 17:32 213.132.47.86 8080 2169 ms 07/01 18:23 210.204.108.131 80 2170 ms 07/01 17:15 193.251.1.26 80 2173 ms 07/01 17:51 205.123.42.20 80 2175 ms 07/01 16:17 210.220.73.4 80 2175 ms 07/01 18:15 216.138.5.2 8080 2184 ms 07/01 18:27 217.61.74.130 80 2187 ms 07/01 18:29 210.168.222.90 8080 2189 ms 07/01 16:20 195.15.66.5 8000 2193 ms 07/01 17:54 203.53.226.2 8080 2194 ms 07/01 16:16 203.12.144.231 80 2194 ms 07/01 18:41 203.166.96.237 8080 2196 ms 07/01 16:15 200.242.4.80 80 2197 ms 07/01 16:13 203.42.33.100 80 2199 ms 07/01 16:53 210.190.57.114 80 2204 ms 07/01 17:14 211.60.10.142 80 2207 ms 07/01 18:18 210.216.105.2 3128 2209 ms 07/01 17:15 168.209.247.196 80 2221 ms 07/01 16:35 200.47.67.106 80 2226 ms 07/01 18:01 148.233.95.58 80 2229 ms 07/01 18:18 200.231.45.2 80 2230 ms 07/01 16:46 203.197.250.243 80 2230 ms 07/01 16:51 208.32.23.7 8080 2231 ms 07/01 17:06 212.34.160.76 80 2231 ms 07/01 17:25 198.178.167.1 80 2232 ms 07/01 17:56 213.39.17.130 3128 2239 ms 07/01 17:28 209.77.176.68 80 2240 ms 07/01 17:09 139.130.45.100 3128 2241 ms 07/01 16:32 207.35.135.66 3128 2243 ms 07/01 17:03 200.64.63.177 80 2244 ms 07/01 18:40 212.19.47.241 3128 2246 ms 07/01 17:23 209.185.122.39 8080 2249 ms 07/01 18:13 168.209.247.225 80 2250 ms 07/01 16:35 63.239.112.226 80 2252 ms 07/01 17:40 168.209.246.208 80 2256 ms 07/01 16:34 212.178.3.72 80 2260 ms 07/01 18:20 217.52.130.3 8080 2261 ms 07/01 18:29 211.57.100.4 3128 2267 ms 07/01 17:20 203.73.227.50 80 2269 ms 07/01 16:55 207.173.172.98 8000 2275 ms 07/01 17:00 194.212.26.25 1080 2277 ms 07/01 18:23 212.17.100.177 3128 2277 ms 07/01 17:22 203.117.67.122 8080 2277 ms 07/01 18:05 203.166.96.231 8080 2282 ms 07/01 18:06 210.96.165.5 8080 2285 ms 07/01 18:16 64.30.204.5 80 2286 ms 07/01 17:44 194.108.70.81 3128 2287 ms 07/01 18:53 210.181.4.173 80 2288 ms 07/01 16:20 194.64.240.100 80 2296 ms 07/01 16:38 62.161.48.1 80 2296 ms 07/01 17:37 195.39.134.85 80 2298 ms 07/01 19:01 202.54.13.146 80 2298 ms 07/01 18:04 193.147.89.195 80 2300 ms 07/01 17:51 200.181.107.195 80 2301 ms 07/01 19:04 209.50.141.130 8080 2306 ms 07/01 16:19 210.97.40.225 80 2306 ms 07/01 18:17 207.65.74.1 80 2309 ms 07/01 17:04 213.9.30.66 3128 2311 ms 07/01 17:29 216.148.246.133 80 2313 ms 07/01 16:31 210.96.35.253 8080 2316 ms 07/01 18:35 203.155.16.145 80 2321 ms 07/01 16:50 216.167.48.205 8080 2324 ms 07/01 17:32 212.101.9.50 8080 2325 ms 07/01 18:38 4.23.172.142 80 2327 ms 07/01 18:31 203.198.59.13 80 2329 ms 07/01 16:51 200.49.7.252 80 2330 ms 07/01 18:02 63.116.146.51 80 2332 ms 07/01 17:39 194.25.98.134 80 2338 ms 07/01 17:53 63.251.201.164 80 2345 ms 07/01 16:28 195.94.203.194 8080 2347 ms 07/01 19:01 168.209.246.150 80 2347 ms 07/01 16:33 153.96.67.2 8080 2350 ms 07/01 16:32 202.5.162.108 8080 2351 ms 07/01 18:04 209.77.220.18 8080 2354 ms 07/01 16:30 62.160.100.73 8080 2354 ms 07/01 17:37 202.57.69.18 3128 2362 ms 07/01 18:11 207.229.10.86 8000 2362 ms 07/01 17:02 194.143.227.235 3128 2366 ms 07/01 17:53 24.141.124.103 80 2367 ms 07/01 18:34 148.235.65.65 80 2368 ms 07/01 18:12 211.99.65.190 3128 2369 ms 07/01 18:19 209.116.71.39 80 2370 ms 07/01 17:06 212.47.5.230 3128 2371 ms 07/01 16:30 62.159.42.163 80 2375 ms 07/01 17:37 204.29.66.76 80 2376 ms 07/01 18:11 193.120.219.187 80 2380 ms 07/01 16:36 200.26.74.205 3128 2389 ms 07/01 16:14 212.42.172.156 80 2390 ms 07/01 17:26 210.100.229.35 80 2399 ms 07/01 18:43 195.199.102.45 80 2401 ms 07/01 17:55 24.101.205.127 80 2401 ms 07/01 18:29 216.167.57.190 8080 2410 ms 07/01 18:49 194.199.196.7 3128 2412 ms 07/01 18:58 210.104.163.190 8080 2412 ms 07/01 17:10 210.181.1.173 80 2414 ms 07/01 16:20 193.188.97.151 80 2417 ms 07/01 17:51 209.182.73.242 80 2420 ms 07/01 16:37 195.145.5.12 80 2421 ms 07/01 16:38 211.9.49.228 8080 2425 ms 07/01 18:38 206.78.27.194 80 2427 ms 07/01 16:59 211.114.54.241 8080 2427 ms 07/01 18:45 210.190.72.50 80 2434 ms 07/01 17:14 202.187.151.3 3128 2441 ms 07/01 18:29 203.185.100.130 8080 2443 ms 07/01 18:06 212.145.4.89 3128 2449 ms 07/01 18:39 203.255.248.22 80 2449 ms 07/01 16:52 204.38.32.6 8080 2451 ms 07/01 16:16 200.204.150.25 3128 2461 ms 07/01 16:11 168.209.247.42 80 2462 ms 07/01 16:35 203.238.211.219 80 2470 ms 07/01 18:08 32.97.202.130 80 2473 ms 07/01 16:26 61.153.41.204 8080 2476 ms 07/01 16:26 206.45.128.28 80 2480 ms 07/01 16:58 203.12.144.232 80 2480 ms 07/01 18:41 209.152.106.74 3128 2486 ms 07/01 18:32 203.236.83.129 80 2487 ms 07/01 16:52 200.17.79.42 3128 2490 ms 07/01 18:27 210.145.53.115 80 2492 ms 07/01 16:32 200.26.74.204 3128 2495 ms 07/01 16:13 203.239.34.11 80 2496 ms 07/01 16:52 202.105.10.193 8080 2498 ms 07/01 18:36 203.252.3.183 80 2499 ms 07/01 16:52 210.218.69.203 8080 2499 ms 07/01 17:18 208.193.134.83 3128 2500 ms 07/01 18:13 210.66.185.106 80 2503 ms 07/01 17:19 217.8.33.76 8080 2510 ms 07/01 17:35 210.12.77.130 80 2514 ms 07/01 17:11 212.116.171.169 8080 2515 ms 07/01 17:21 209.67.28.103 80 2516 ms 07/01 17:09 211.18.226.250 8080 2532 ms 07/01 18:36 207.88.19.251 80 2534 ms 07/01 17:05 210.146.37.27 80 2538 ms 07/01 17:12 202.57.160.159 8080 2541 ms 07/01 18:05 206.163.128.1 80 2547 ms 07/01 16:57 211.0.70.226 80 2548 ms 07/01 18:35 206.61.140.29 8080 2550 ms 07/01 16:18 211.114.59.225 80 2550 ms 07/01 18:18 212.80.166.163 80 2552 ms 07/01 18:49 195.205.203.30 80 2552 ms 07/01 19:00 210.97.78.253 80 2554 ms 07/01 18:45 208.51.130.126 80 2565 ms 07/01 18:32 193.158.59.193 80 2570 ms 07/01 18:57 202.82.77.2 3128 2570 ms 07/01 18:41 206.163.128.7 80 2573 ms 07/01 16:57 206.251.231.130 80 2573 ms 07/01 16:57 151.17.197.193 8080 2576 ms 07/01 18:56 207.71.247.2 80 2577 ms 07/01 17:05 212.27.205.191 8080 2588 ms 07/01 18:21 216.136.192.138 80 2590 ms 07/01 16:29 202.109.12.38 8080 2593 ms 07/01 16:14 194.97.223.21 3128 2595 ms 07/01 17:53 211.251.197.253 8080 2596 ms 07/01 18:18 204.196.123.56 80 2601 ms 07/01 18:11 208.20.90.125 80 2607 ms 07/01 17:05 200.242.14.227 80 2608 ms 07/01 17:59 212.116.182.5 8080 2614 ms 07/01 17:21 196.28.49.69 8080 2616 ms 07/01 18:37 62.42.63.20 80 2624 ms 07/01 16:27 62.157.112.242 8080 2625 ms 07/01 17:36 209.172.219.37 80 2626 ms 07/01 18:32 61.153.41.206 8080 2626 ms 07/01 16:27 206.70.251.251 80 2631 ms 07/01 18:11 213.132.43.46 8080 2639 ms 07/01 18:23 203.41.4.166 80 2645 ms 07/01 16:53 210.218.77.139 8080 2646 ms 07/01 17:18 216.148.246.69 80 2648 ms 07/01 16:31 210.177.74.216 80 2648 ms 07/01 17:13 62.97.67.2 80 2653 ms 07/01 17:38 202.103.37.163 8080 2656 ms 07/01 18:02 193.146.153.226 80 2663 ms 07/01 18:21 216.55.15.17 3128 2665 ms 07/01 18:27 62.168.18.90 80 2666 ms 07/01 17:37 210.217.42.101 80 2668 ms 07/01 17:17 202.21.8.220 80 2671 ms 07/01 18:29 200.202.96.10 3128 2679 ms 07/01 18:52 207.64.153.11 80 2679 ms 07/01 17:04 192.115.8.147 80 2682 ms 07/01 18:20 217.109.171.101 8000 2684 ms 07/01 18:51 63.85.202.82 80 2685 ms 07/01 17:42 200.216.241.202 3128 2685 ms 07/01 17:57 210.77.146.40 80 2687 ms 07/01 18:43 203.238.212.9 8080 2690 ms 07/01 18:08 200.213.8.131 3128 2694 ms 07/01 18:38 216.47.187.138 80 2709 ms 07/01 17:33 195.146.234.31 80 2721 ms 07/01 16:38 4.41.240.6 3128 2723 ms 07/01 18:31 168.209.247.194 80 2724 ms 07/01 16:35 208.166.82.124 8080 2733 ms 07/01 18:13 217.17.233.135 80 2736 ms 07/01 18:28 157.91.110.1 80 2739 ms 07/01 17:49 207.241.13.3 8000 2740 ms 07/01 17:02 193.226.6.183 3128 2742 ms 07/01 18:58 200.238.164.15 80 2743 ms 07/01 16:46 204.71.65.253 3128 2746 ms 07/01 18:31 203.198.23.32 80 2746 ms 07/01 18:07 216.228.5.62 80 2750 ms 07/01 18:33 168.209.246.149 80 2752 ms 07/01 16:33 61.144.224.39 8080 2763 ms 07/01 18:32 203.227.166.24 8080 2768 ms 07/01 18:07 213.14.46.63 80 2769 ms 07/01 18:25 168.209.254.222 80 2770 ms 07/01 16:36 203.185.98.212 8080 2777 ms 07/01 16:50 213.33.58.150 80 2778 ms 07/01 17:28 210.72.33.194 80 2787 ms 07/01 17:20 213.14.45.164 80 2788 ms 07/01 18:24 194.8.84.93 80 2789 ms 07/01 16:38 61.127.9.243 8080 2794 ms 07/01 18:32 216.15.161.6 80 2797 ms 07/01 17:31 195.215.208.122 80 2797 ms 07/01 17:55 62.180.109.72 80 2799 ms 07/01 17:38 210.97.82.193 3128 2799 ms 07/01 18:17 212.200.57.1 8080 2802 ms 07/01 16:22 210.169.135.253 8080 2804 ms 07/01 16:31 61.120.141.19 80 2804 ms 07/01 18:31 216.167.47.25 8080 2806 ms 07/01 18:49 209.88.4.98 3128 2806 ms 07/01 18:43 62.157.215.145 8080 2811 ms 07/01 17:36 216.20.10.40 8616 2815 ms 07/01 18:49 207.42.182.8 80 2816 ms 07/01 18:34 200.240.17.4 8080 2818 ms 07/01 18:28 210.163.69.114 80 2819 ms 07/01 17:13 165.139.64.3 80 2825 ms 07/01 17:50 203.151.44.66 8080 2826 ms 07/01 18:17 65.104.70.150 80 2833 ms 07/01 17:45 212.244.57.3 8080 2834 ms 07/01 18:21 203.162.12.106 80 2836 ms 07/01 16:50 207.190.240.195 80 2836 ms 07/01 17:00 212.27.195.193 3128 2838 ms 07/01 18:41 212.18.20.8 80 2841 ms 07/01 17:22 194.95.95.241 3128 2848 ms 07/01 16:38 216.63.146.190 80 2849 ms 07/01 17:34 210.99.83.252 8080 2855 ms 07/01 18:45 203.122.22.27 80 2863 ms 07/01 18:06 211.152.194.72 8080 2867 ms 07/01 18:43 198.5.155.195 3128 2881 ms 07/01 19:03 216.218.198.102 80 2885 ms 07/01 16:26 24.116.163.107 80 2885 ms 07/01 18:29 24.68.203.168 80 2885 ms 07/01 18:31 212.160.74.35 8080 2890 ms 07/01 18:39 211.91.218.15 80 2897 ms 07/01 18:18 200.206.165.32 80 2898 ms 07/01 16:12 207.229.10.81 8000 2898 ms 07/01 17:01 156.3.138.101 80 2907 ms 07/01 16:33 202.21.8.29 80 2908 ms 07/01 18:29 208.33.69.252 80 2915 ms 07/01 18:32 203.227.166.22 8080 2917 ms 07/01 18:07 209.91.66.241 3128 2920 ms 07/01 16:19 211.114.175.129 8080 2922 ms 07/01 18:18 64.83.129.12 7021 2925 ms 07/01 16:29 204.101.186.234 80 2928 ms 07/01 16:55 212.143.212.130 80 2933 ms 07/01 17:21 211.114.50.73 8080 2943 ms 07/01 18:18 168.209.247.88 80 2944 ms 07/01 16:36 200.206.4.4 80 2946 ms 07/01 16:46 213.22.157.250 8080 2948 ms 07/01 18:26 212.27.199.125 3128 2950 ms 07/01 17:25 195.226.230.63 80 2951 ms 07/01 16:40 203.155.16.139 80 2954 ms 07/01 16:50 216.12.31.64 8000 2955 ms 07/01 18:26 210.190.16.2 8000 2961 ms 07/01 18:15 162.114.211.139 80 2964 ms 07/01 18:19 64.0.99.135 8000 2974 ms 07/01 18:50 199.45.200.90 80 2981 ms 07/01 17:56 211.236.159.134 8080 2984 ms 07/01 18:17 162.121.244.60 80 2986 ms 07/01 18:19 210.145.202.146 80 2987 ms 07/01 18:33 200.216.238.230 3128 2990 ms 07/01 16:13 200.75.211.35 80 2992 ms 07/01 18:13 217.17.233.136 80 2994 ms 07/01 16:26 64.4.104.186 80 2998 ms 07/01 17:44 61.13.77.100 80 2998 ms 07/01 18:32 211.162.108.49 80 2999 ms 07/01 18:34 148.233.95.59 80 3001 ms 07/01 18:18 195.146.96.201 3128 3002 ms 07/01 18:24 193.97.251.114 80 3002 ms 07/01 18:58 193.251.130.61 8080 3003 ms 07/01 18:22 63.84.78.118 3128 3007 ms 07/01 17:42 204.184.92.240 8000 3011 ms 07/01 18:10 195.37.16.120 3128 3015 ms 07/01 18:25 200.199.103.42 80 3016 ms 07/01 16:44 195.230.37.38 80 3020 ms 07/01 16:40 63.80.139.195 80 3030 ms 07/01 16:43 196.40.43.34 80 3031 ms 07/01 18:07 203.155.16.130 80 3038 ms 07/01 16:49 168.209.247.193 80 3049 ms 07/01 16:35 210.218.71.139 8080 3050 ms 07/01 17:18 195.34.140.62 3128 3058 ms 07/01 19:00 209.9.154.201 8000 3071 ms 07/01 18:33 202.44.12.81 80 3076 ms 07/01 18:41 12.28.55.250 80 3079 ms 07/01 18:52 202.148.195.5 8080 3084 ms 07/01 16:15 211.15.60.18 8080 3092 ms 07/01 18:36 207.68.37.68 80 3094 ms 07/01 17:04 200.21.224.121 3128 3098 ms 07/01 18:28 193.6.135.138 80 3099 ms 07/01 17:52 200.47.67.107 80 3107 ms 07/01 18:01 194.25.184.58 3128 3108 ms 07/01 16:37 210.226.82.210 80 3113 ms 07/01 18:15 210.125.135.127 8080 3117 ms 07/01 17:11 210.95.243.235 8080 3117 ms 07/01 18:16 212.50.195.12 80 3123 ms 07/01 17:26 193.197.193.161 80 3127 ms 07/01 18:58 66.119.34.38 8000 3128 ms 07/01 18:50 217.237.162.18 80 3128 ms 07/01 17:35 168.209.246.204 80 3130 ms 07/01 18:57 24.46.255.18 8080 3133 ms 07/01 18:30 209.88.60.52 80 3135 ms 07/01 18:33 202.229.233.14 80 3136 ms 07/01 18:40 212.178.7.81 80 3136 ms 07/01 18:48 194.63.230.93 80 3138 ms 07/01 16:38 210.217.237.75 8080 3139 ms 07/01 17:17 216.15.42.234 8000 3139 ms 07/01 17:32 195.72.228.159 3128 3142 ms 07/01 19:01 200.204.148.171 80 3142 ms 07/01 19:05 203.187.192.87 80 3153 ms 07/01 16:51 203.33.223.2 8000 3163 ms 07/01 18:08 210.243.174.34 80 3164 ms 07/01 17:19 208.30.1.65 80 3185 ms 07/01 17:06 203.126.46.66 80 3188 ms 07/01 16:48 211.17.150.163 80 3189 ms 07/01 18:36 153.109.180.2 8080 3195 ms 07/01 16:32 199.216.39.155 80 3196 ms 07/01 16:43 200.35.96.37 80 3199 ms 07/01 16:31 203.177.14.235 3128 3208 ms 07/01 16:16 203.48.118.146 80 3209 ms 07/01 16:54 217.219.6.129 80 3211 ms 07/01 18:28 196.3.167.135 3128 3222 ms 07/01 16:41 204.49.227.115 7046 3226 ms 07/01 16:17 195.39.134.80 80 3228 ms 07/01 19:00 195.178.164.205 8000 3229 ms 07/01 16:39 61.127.239.244 80 3232 ms 07/01 18:32 216.72.63.198 8080 3233 ms 07/01 18:16 212.160.74.241 8080 3233 ms 07/01 17:22 210.92.12.22 8080 3233 ms 07/01 18:16 61.153.41.220 8080 3248 ms 07/01 16:27 209.226.25.249 80 3249 ms 07/01 17:09 195.39.134.81 80 3253 ms 07/01 19:00 24.132.216.42 80 3254 ms 07/01 18:29 200.14.205.206 80 3258 ms 07/01 16:29 207.69.27.2 80 3262 ms 07/01 17:04 200.24.16.21 80 3270 ms 07/01 16:31 61.153.41.203 8080 3273 ms 07/01 16:26 210.163.167.162 80 3274 ms 07/01 18:15 200.207.128.8 80 3277 ms 07/01 16:12 216.83.24.2 80 3281 ms 07/01 18:27 211.35.78.36 80 3287 ms 07/01 18:16 211.6.196.50 80 3291 ms 07/01 18:06 64.3.180.120 3128 3302 ms 07/01 18:54 195.22.169.129 80 3305 ms 07/01 18:12 203.144.16.41 80 3311 ms 07/01 16:48 194.65.77.1 80 3313 ms 07/01 18:24 66.119.33.134 8000 3314 ms 07/01 18:50 151.99.246.254 8080 3321 ms 07/01 18:56 63.101.143.46 80 3322 ms 07/01 17:39 210.226.192.210 80 3324 ms 07/01 18:34 200.41.234.241 80 3325 ms 07/01 18:13 203.90.81.84 80 3325 ms 07/01 16:16 217.34.139.177 8080 3325 ms 07/01 18:28 212.6.92.124 3128 3335 ms 07/01 17:27 213.243.30.5 80 3337 ms 07/01 16:25 195.164.73.1 8080 3345 ms 07/01 18:24 212.43.183.220 80 3350 ms 07/01 17:26 210.238.49.2 3128 3354 ms 07/01 16:33 193.251.131.10 80 3354 ms 07/01 17:52 62.42.228.20 80 3376 ms 07/01 16:27 207.50.235.26 80 3378 ms 07/01 17:03 211.102.2.205 8080 3387 ms 07/01 18:17 203.47.3.50 80 3388 ms 07/01 16:54 202.108.119.181 80 3392 ms 07/01 18:37 207.199.5.153 80 3394 ms 07/01 16:18 212.17.98.130 80 3400 ms 07/01 18:40 203.197.138.163 3128 3400 ms 07/01 18:07 211.114.139.67 8080 3404 ms 07/01 18:17 63.100.154.1 8080 3414 ms 07/01 17:38 212.219.207.3 80 3414 ms 07/01 18:21 210.92.12.21 8080 3419 ms 07/01 18:15 207.175.168.2 80 3423 ms 07/01 18:14 195.8.229.226 3128 3427 ms 07/01 19:01 193.15.237.21 80 3430 ms 07/01 18:21 196.3.96.74 3128 3432 ms 07/01 18:27 212.24.71.10 80 3441 ms 07/01 18:41 202.56.221.11 80 3466 ms 07/01 18:04 195.70.242.210 8080 3495 ms 07/01 18:25 210.196.173.243 80 3503 ms 07/01 17:15 211.252.51.3 8080 3504 ms 07/01 17:20 200.55.9.50 80 3506 ms 07/01 18:39 217.144.7.22 8080 3514 ms 07/01 18:50 202.82.135.129 80 3515 ms 07/01 18:30 212.27.155.100 3128 3515 ms 07/01 17:25 213.25.243.106 3128 3517 ms 07/01 17:28 198.88.148.129 80 3520 ms 07/01 16:41 216.47.0.28 80 3527 ms 07/01 17:33 200.41.151.178 3128 3528 ms 07/01 16:14 203.200.70.36 8080 3542 ms 07/01 16:51 202.42.231.2 8080 3548 ms 07/01 16:15 24.97.65.186 80 3553 ms 07/01 18:31 63.163.68.115 3128 3556 ms 07/01 16:28 203.12.80.16 80 3562 ms 07/01 18:30 210.164.117.82 80 3566 ms 07/01 17:13 210.95.3.130 8080 3570 ms 07/01 18:16 210.161.75.226 80 3582 ms 07/01 18:14 202.29.37.1 8080 3585 ms 07/01 18:30 195.39.134.82 80 3594 ms 07/01 19:01 195.209.129.10 3128 3599 ms 07/01 18:51 208.3.98.150 80 3601 ms 07/01 17:05 202.139.168.243 3128 3605 ms 07/01 18:40 210.232.100.146 80 3610 ms 07/01 18:34 212.17.66.196 80 3612 ms 07/01 17:22 200.214.197.114 80 3613 ms 07/01 18:28 198.173.9.131 80 3618 ms 07/01 18:33 209.128.41.97 80 3630 ms 07/01 17:07 200.14.221.226 80 3631 ms 07/01 17:56 200.248.115.130 80 3632 ms 07/01 18:38 204.60.139.10 80 3636 ms 07/01 16:17 148.233.159.57 3128 3641 ms 07/01 18:54 148.235.159.234 80 3662 ms 07/01 18:19 212.17.86.142 80 3665 ms 07/01 17:22 196.9.209.35 80 3667 ms 07/01 19:03 210.217.251.203 8080 3677 ms 07/01 17:17 212.18.3.203 80 3692 ms 07/01 18:40 209.50.129.91 80 3692 ms 07/01 16:19 203.59.102.1 80 3699 ms 07/01 16:16 213.25.29.12 80 3699 ms 07/01 18:26 194.98.241.0 3128 3720 ms 07/01 18:59 194.143.232.92 3128 3766 ms 07/01 16:37 195.8.0.234 80 3767 ms 07/01 18:48 195.170.91.14 80 3769 ms 07/01 17:55 216.72.155.74 80 3772 ms 07/01 18:27 63.242.136.107 80 3783 ms 07/01 17:41 212.3.8.145 80 3795 ms 07/01 18:16 64.81.232.227 80 3796 ms 07/01 17:45 212.46.108.34 80 3797 ms 07/01 17:26 209.18.254.70 80 3800 ms 07/01 16:29 203.53.96.226 80 3803 ms 07/01 16:54 204.49.227.116 7046 3828 ms 07/01 16:17 195.181.4.6 80 3832 ms 07/01 16:39 203.58.162.36 80 3835 ms 07/01 16:16 168.209.246.163 80 3835 ms 07/01 17:50 203.148.242.3 80 3839 ms 07/01 16:49 210.74.254.35 80 3849 ms 07/01 18:35 212.19.71.42 3128 3852 ms 07/01 18:40 168.209.254.209 80 3867 ms 07/01 16:36 63.160.54.224 80 3870 ms 07/01 16:28 200.61.163.73 80 3874 ms 07/01 18:39 212.23.129.118 8080 3881 ms 07/01 17:24 196.3.64.85 3128 3886 ms 07/01 18:26 212.13.254.131 80 3893 ms 07/01 17:21 203.73.227.18 80 3907 ms 07/01 16:55 202.99.188.201 80 3924 ms 07/01 16:47 212.35.64.254 8080 3931 ms 07/01 18:49 203.26.23.4 3128 3932 ms 07/01 18:31 207.253.238.14 8080 3944 ms 07/01 17:03 194.224.39.50 80 3957 ms 07/01 18:59 210.220.73.22 80 3968 ms 07/01 18:33 211.75.23.218 3128 3968 ms 07/01 18:38 210.172.69.27 8080 3969 ms 07/01 18:33 211.91.5.2 8080 3971 ms 07/01 18:19 194.154.134.14 80 3972 ms 07/01 16:37 210.102.176.4 3128 3973 ms 07/01 17:10 211.108.90.6 80 3980 ms 07/01 18:17 211.114.51.225 8080 3981 ms 07/01 18:18 202.243.218.65 8080 3998 ms 07/01 16:15 148.243.171.131 3128 4005 ms 07/01 18:19 200.242.13.147 80 4009 ms 07/01 18:28 210.226.217.98 80 4010 ms 07/01 16:30 211.11.205.98 80 4011 ms 07/01 18:06 192.172.226.76 3128 4022 ms 07/01 18:21 195.5.50.242 3128 4037 ms 07/01 18:52 194.106.137.20 80 4076 ms 07/01 18:22 168.209.246.195 80 4081 ms 07/01 16:34 194.204.145.100 8080 4083 ms 07/01 18:22 203.126.243.135 80 4087 ms 07/01 16:47 211.20.2.178 3128 4088 ms 07/01 18:37 163.29.23.99 80 4096 ms 07/01 18:35 212.38.235.45 80 4098 ms 07/01 17:25 200.202.227.1 80 4100 ms 07/01 19:05 207.65.22.163 8000 4101 ms 07/01 17:04 212.32.5.217 80 4110 ms 07/01 18:16 200.13.199.35 80 4114 ms 07/01 19:04 200.21.215.241 3128 4125 ms 07/01 18:27 61.144.34.130 80 4136 ms 07/01 18:35 203.47.16.1 80 4137 ms 07/01 16:54 62.189.116.5 80 4139 ms 07/01 17:38 203.135.58.196 80 4156 ms 07/01 18:30 24.60.123.239 3128 4164 ms 07/01 18:30 63.82.42.188 80 4172 ms 07/01 17:42 204.186.5.4 8080 4172 ms 07/01 18:10 213.172.48.2 8080 4176 ms 07/01 18:25 216.56.30.13 80 4180 ms 07/01 17:34 61.114.247.227 80 4190 ms 07/01 18:31 211.20.195.43 8080 4192 ms 07/01 18:08 210.248.226.226 8080 4197 ms 07/01 18:34 210.92.12.23 8080 4205 ms 07/01 18:16 12.146.236.34 3128 4210 ms 07/01 18:17 196.14.1.243 80 4217 ms 07/01 19:02 211.11.151.243 80 4235 ms 07/01 18:36 211.5.251.179 80 4242 ms 07/01 18:09 211.11.240.98 80 4251 ms 07/01 18:10 196.14.1.242 80 4251 ms 07/01 19:02 24.207.42.240 80 4252 ms 07/01 18:30 212.154.175.227 80 4279 ms 07/01 18:20 211.18.246.18 80 4308 ms 07/01 18:10 62.164.215.12 80 4329 ms 07/01 17:37 209.203.30.213 3128 4341 ms 07/01 17:08 207.63.123.10 8000 4344 ms 07/01 17:04 216.250.69.126 80 4352 ms 07/01 17:32 200.72.13.90 80 4398 ms 07/01 18:40 203.166.54.186 80 4400 ms 07/01 16:50 212.44.166.133 8000 4403 ms 07/01 18:22 202.111.183.138 80 4407 ms 07/01 18:37 200.211.186.70 80 4408 ms 07/01 17:57 194.63.220.41 80 4414 ms 07/01 18:59 163.134.182.1 3128 4415 ms 07/01 18:20 211.20.25.34 3128 4448 ms 07/01 18:37 217.34.228.89 8080 4454 ms 07/01 18:28 193.15.237.6 8080 4468 ms 07/01 18:21 62.116.19.67 3128 4475 ms 07/01 16:27 147.91.108.1 80 4477 ms 07/01 18:17 211.96.96.219 3128 4493 ms 07/01 18:19 200.204.97.114 80 4498 ms 07/01 16:44 193.171.249.204 8080 4501 ms 07/01 18:22 203.149.203.161 8080 4514 ms 07/01 16:49 216.54.159.84 80 4532 ms 07/01 17:34 200.242.14.55 80 4534 ms 07/01 18:28 203.38.115.194 80 4536 ms 07/01 16:53 210.232.175.226 80 4543 ms 07/01 18:37 210.100.202.252 8080 4546 ms 07/01 17:09 204.210.35.251 8000 4638 ms 07/01 18:10 195.130.88.40 80 4653 ms 07/01 18:12 64.90.0.185 80 4657 ms 07/01 17:45 210.243.219.113 80 4666 ms 07/01 18:34 24.41.13.112 80 4681 ms 07/01 18:30 64.26.169.86 80 4719 ms 07/01 18:34 207.193.174.229 80 4726 ms 07/01 17:00 194.51.31.34 80 4766 ms 07/01 16:37 212.38.131.225 80 4781 ms 07/01 18:21 203.184.152.194 80 4789 ms 07/01 16:50 209.226.167.242 80 4790 ms 07/01 17:08 210.249.112.4 80 4794 ms 07/01 18:34 195.66.163.26 8080 4806 ms 07/01 18:25 62.244.57.221 3128 4834 ms 07/01 17:38 212.125.72.212 80 4860 ms 07/01 18:39 211.114.116.60 80 4894 ms 07/01 18:45 196.25.143.222 8080 4897 ms 07/01 19:02 200.11.71.106 80 4903 ms 07/01 19:04 210.251.99.162 80 4909 ms 07/01 18:44 210.125.134.127 8080 4964 ms 07/01 17:11 193.95.113.110 80 4970 ms 07/01 17:52 200.177.124.35 80 4988 ms 07/01 19:04 63.230.216.145 80 4989 ms 07/01 16:28 212.22.137.10 80 4999 ms 07/01 17:23 12.39.133.114 80 5000 ms 07/01 18:55 217.127.248.37 3128 5009 ms 07/01 17:34 200.207.190.174 3128 5017 ms 07/01 16:13 200.46.109.82 80 5018 ms 07/01 18:39 213.168.6.130 8080 5045 ms 07/01 17:28 209.149.145.250 8080 5056 ms 07/01 16:18 216.44.48.253 80 5059 ms 07/01 17:33 203.38.103.170 8080 5065 ms 07/01 16:52 61.120.33.82 80 5067 ms 07/01 18:32 212.116.177.5 8080 5100 ms 07/01 18:39 203.56.134.253 8080 5104 ms 07/01 18:31 61.134.32.110 80 5126 ms 07/01 18:35 203.155.144.119 8080 5140 ms 07/01 16:49 212.110.8.18 8000 5212 ms 07/01 18:20 198.234.249.135 80 5221 ms 07/01 18:33 218.44.151.218 80 5232 ms 07/01 18:51 210.243.211.34 80 5278 ms 07/01 17:19 203.151.40.4 80 5279 ms 07/01 18:14 24.43.241.218 80 5299 ms 07/01 18:30 193.146.90.34 80 5311 ms 07/01 18:21 210.241.252.66 80 5321 ms 07/01 17:19 210.180.96.6 80 5335 ms 07/01 18:44 198.17.46.100 3128 5346 ms 07/01 18:05 200.47.79.134 80 5354 ms 07/01 18:39 216.53.154.34 80 5381 ms 07/01 17:33 200.231.33.222 8080 5382 ms 07/01 18:38 199.181.166.247 80 5384 ms 07/01 16:42 211.0.37.194 80 5388 ms 07/01 18:35 203.186.146.161 80 5390 ms 07/01 16:51 200.51.156.93 80 5494 ms 07/01 16:14 216.12.105.2 80 5564 ms 07/01 18:26 200.40.145.4 80 5609 ms 07/01 18:29 213.95.5.26 80 5609 ms 07/01 17:29 210.224.102.217 80 5641 ms 07/01 17:18 199.178.39.11 80 5707 ms 07/01 16:42 210.175.125.34 80 5745 ms 07/01 18:15 216.17.19.4 3128 5768 ms 07/01 18:27 195.215.143.194 80 5816 ms 07/01 16:40 211.5.148.67 80 5825 ms 07/01 18:10 211.18.246.19 80 5870 ms 07/01 18:37 203.155.172.60 80 5872 ms 07/01 18:14 139.130.175.181 80 5891 ms 07/01 18:17 200.206.162.56 80 5902 ms 07/01 16:12 209.236.124.22 80 5923 ms 07/01 16:19 196.2.79.22 8000 5943 ms 07/01 16:31 210.254.8.52 8000 5955 ms 07/01 18:35 207.177.74.225 8000 5991 ms 07/01 18:36 200.206.142.41 80 6037 ms 07/01 16:12 206.111.95.99 80 6059 ms 07/01 16:57 194.208.136.3 8080 6060 ms 07/01 19:00 212.42.166.98 80 6087 ms 07/01 17:26 196.9.209.66 80 6100 ms 07/01 19:03 200.52.4.82 80 6135 ms 07/01 16:14 209.150.5.34 8080 6136 ms 07/01 17:07 203.102.215.227 80 6188 ms 07/01 18:13 200.24.214.132 80 6204 ms 07/01 16:47 193.146.38.146 80 6300 ms 07/01 17:51 194.78.201.114 80 6453 ms 07/01 17:54 212.19.79.210 80 6498 ms 07/01 18:40 200.0.211.214 80 6503 ms 07/01 16:43 213.121.170.154 80 6509 ms 07/01 18:34 200.15.130.56 80 6565 ms 07/01 17:57 203.52.45.17 80 6568 ms 07/01 18:09 216.208.223.130 80 6632 ms 07/01 18:07 209.187.235.30 80 6645 ms 07/01 18:32 211.15.62.123 8000 6647 ms 07/01 18:10 195.168.76.51 3128 6658 ms 07/01 17:55 196.37.155.66 80 6683 ms 07/01 18:27 213.93.59.198 80 6683 ms 07/01 17:29 212.219.163.252 80 6716 ms 07/01 18:21 203.108.88.169 80 6765 ms 07/01 18:11 195.126.161.198 80 6776 ms 07/01 18:24 212.140.160.114 80 6810 ms 07/01 16:22 200.203.159.2 80 6844 ms 07/01 18:07 200.61.74.4 80 6922 ms 07/01 18:40 194.27.53.4 80 6945 ms 07/01 18:23 200.195.52.193 80 6950 ms 07/01 18:27 207.253.255.210 80 6975 ms 07/01 18:42 194.63.211.9 80 6994 ms 07/01 18:59 210.242.172.250 80 7018 ms 07/01 18:15 199.234.253.66 80 7058 ms 07/01 16:43 210.66.193.222 80 7358 ms 07/01 17:20 206.87.50.254 80 7362 ms 07/01 16:59 210.255.65.2 80 7449 ms 07/01 18:16 210.179.92.253 8080 7504 ms 07/01 18:14 202.111.170.60 8080 7537 ms 07/01 18:42 194.133.124.3 80 7594 ms 07/01 17:53 200.195.7.2 80 7632 ms 07/01 16:44 211.5.237.115 80 7642 ms 07/01 18:38 194.42.193.10 3128 7647 ms 07/01 18:52 212.138.48.3 8080 7791 ms 07/01 16:21 213.22.118.75 3128 7795 ms 07/01 18:26 202.99.126.123 80 7957 ms 07/01 18:36 194.63.229.137 80 8025 ms 07/01 18:10 63.145.62.99 80 8151 ms 07/01 16:27 194.63.216.81 80 8172 ms 07/01 18:23 203.39.67.130 8080 8213 ms 07/01 18:08 139.130.75.13 80 8296 ms 07/01 18:43 139.130.40.235 80 8325 ms 07/01 18:55 196.34.217.1 8080 8362 ms 07/01 19:02 211.93.128.162 80 8384 ms 07/01 18:19 212.116.171.101 8080 8470 ms 07/01 17:21 212.15.17.210 8080 8675 ms 07/01 18:39 202.7.165.56 80 8808 ms 07/01 16:47 210.232.99.146 80 8854 ms 07/01 18:15 212.243.86.138 8080 8926 ms 07/01 17:24 200.24.176.161 80 8958 ms 07/01 18:38 212.68.199.163 8000 9049 ms 07/01 18:22 196.23.147.34 80 9126 ms 07/01 18:26 195.18.91.10 80 9369 ms 07/01 18:25 64.132.150.194 80 9670 ms 07/01 17:43 216.127.3.61 80 9772 ms 07/01 17:30 193.11.12.52 3128 9962 ms 07/01 18:53 64.108.32.30 8801 9996 ms 07/01 16:28 202.110.59.142 8080 10010 ms 07/01 18:42 205.158.37.129 3128 10169 ms 07/01 18:31 216.148.128.17 80 10267 ms 07/01 17:31 212.56.197.247 80 10584 ms 07/01 18:22 210.196.95.18 8080 10744 ms 07/01 18:36 216.127.142.98 80 12219 ms 07/01 17:30 211.11.204.18 80 12982 ms 07/01 18:09 196.40.60.34 3128 13139 ms 07/01 19:03 213.128.32.227 80 13506 ms 07/01 18:23 200.205.193.230 80 14132 ms 07/01 16:45 195.112.17.205 8080 14324 ms 07/01 17:54 163.178.136.2 3128 15004 ms 07/01 18:56 200.205.193.233 80 15445 ms 07/01 16:46 211.11.206.195 80 15554 ms 07/01 18:09 196.2.79.5 8000 16160 ms 07/01 18:26 212.29.108.221 80 16289 ms 07/01 18:43 195.162.160.10 8000 16554 ms 07/01 16:39 202.53.236.18 80 16642 ms 07/01 16:15 200.205.193.228 80 17067 ms 07/01 16:45 200.205.193.227 80 17399 ms 07/01 16:44 212.100.193.39 8080 17400 ms 07/01 18:20 212.29.108.236 80 17812 ms 07/01 18:44 212.29.108.167 80 17869 ms 07/01 18:41 212.29.108.174 80 17911 ms 07/01 18:42 212.29.108.210 80 18093 ms 07/01 18:42 212.29.108.3 80 18516 ms 07/01 18:44 212.29.108.234 80 20811 ms 07/01 18:43 212.29.82.33 80 20828 ms 07/01 18:48 212.29.118.60 80 20997 ms 07/01 18:48 213.14.4.50 80 22573 ms 07/01 18:47 212.29.70.132 80 22857 ms 07/01 16:25 212.29.118.56 80 22956 ms 07/01 18:47 212.29.108.42 80 22990 ms 07/01 16:23 212.29.111.157 80 24063 ms 07/01 18:45 194.72.9.37 3128 24227 ms 07/01 18:08 213.14.3.196 80 24938 ms 07/01 18:47 212.29.111.51 80 25628 ms 07/01 18:45 212.29.111.236 80 25657 ms 07/01 16:23 212.29.111.56 80 26440 ms 07/01 18:46 212.29.118.50 80 26733 ms 07/01 18:47 212.29.118.220 80 27040 ms 07/01 18:46 212.29.79.143 80 27403 ms 07/01 18:46 212.29.71.132 80 27486 ms 07/01 16:24 213.14.5.250 80 27855 ms 07/01 18:25 213.14.4.67 80 29044 ms 07/01 18:24 212.29.108.178 80 29737 ms 07/01 16:22

Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

Hello!

This doesn't make since because:

Internet doesn't change what is wrong, though it may change how wrong can be accomplished.

Therefore, if somebody does something illegal, using Internet, then it would still be the same as though they had not used Internet to do the crime. That person can be prosecuted, but Internet itself has nothing to do with the crime, and remains free.

Because Internet is *a bunch of nodes that can send packets to each other*, it really doesn't need any special laws (other then FCC kind of stuff). However, using Internet does not exempt one from the existing laws.

This is why the Network itself must remain free, but usage of the Network does not make the user free.

I liked the article's note about "phonespace" to show the silliness of "cyperspace". Whoever coined that tern deserves to be executed (same with that bletcherous "Information Super Highway").

But on the other hand, the article *way* over-used cyberfoo words, so it's self- contradictitory in that way.

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Anonymous Coward]

quaternion:~$ cat 774871.asp.html|sed 's/cyber/cyber^M/gi'| tr '^M' '^J'|grep -c cyber
23

Sorry, I couldn't think of a neater way to count the words offhand.

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

I liked the article's note about "phonespace" to show the silliness of "cyperspace". Whoever coined that tern deserves to be executed (same with that bletcherous "Information Super Highway").

I believe William Gibson coined the term in his novel Neuromancer. I gotta ask - why do you hate the word cyberspace? I would have to admit that it's overused but since there IS actually something that we all agree needs a name and is currently called cyberspace, I think it's valid. What would YOU call it?

On a side note, I think any good definition of cyberspace would have to include the phone system, even back when it was new. The concept is linked to communication between nodes (people, computers, whatever) and could probably be stretched to include radio and TV. Cyberspace to me has always been that place where you are when you are communicating with the world outside of your immediate surroundings. Maybe native Americans sending smoke signals were interfacing through cyberspace.

alex

Re:Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

Its just over-used and silly.

What exactly are they talking about when they talk about cyberspace? Surely not that which Gibson was. Why must the mass media people always relate the Network with physical things (cyberspace), when it isn't at all so.

What would I call it? Let's save that until it exist (it really doesn't, if I understand correctly).

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

Gibson was talking about virtual reality renderings of computer networks through which a user could navigate the net, access information and join virtual communities. With the exception of "jacking in" with a plug in your head this is almost a perfect description of the current Internet. Neuromancer was published in 1986 when the net was a pretty boring place for the average person.

I'm a little perturbed that you claim that cyberspace doesn't exist but then fail to explain yourself. By most reasonable definitions it does exist and you're soaking in it as you read. But you can call it whatever you want, no skin off my nose.

alex

Re:Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

What "virtual renderings of computer networks"?

I don't see any virtual renderings of computer networks. Am I missing something blatantly obvious? If that is the case, please spell it out for me.

If you're talking about the WWW, all it is is a collection of interlinked hypertext documents that are retrieved from servers using a common namespace. Still not what you're describing cyberspace as being.

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

What "virtual renderings of computer networks"? I don't see any virtual renderings of computer networks. Am I missing something blatantly obvious? If that is the case, please spell it out for me.

Yes, happy to. It's the BROWSER, dude. It is rendering the virtual world of slashdot onto your monitor right now. See it? Okay, now this page you're reading isn't made of paper is it? It isn't exactly made of glass and metal, either. It isn't exactly just pixels. It isn't exactly just electrons or bits or anything else. It's a kind of mishmash that inside your brain adds up to a "virtual" community where we can all talk. Without the community, you couldn't read this. Without the virtualness of it, we'd have to all meet together in some physical location. Okay? Would you like to miss my point a third time?

alex

Re:Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

Ooo...okay, so the WWW is a cyberspace. You're saying that interlinked hypertext documents in a network-transparent namespace rendered by a graphical rendering program constitutes cyberspace? Okay, whatever. Still, though, I think that the word is over-used by cluelesses.

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

The WWW is only the most popular information access service in cyberspace. You may or may not be aware of many other Internet services that run on the Internet such as FTP, Usenet, MUDs, MPOGs, MMORPGS discussion forums, blogs, IRC, IM, etc etc etc etc etc
So no, Einstein, I'm not claiming that the WWW is equivalent to cyberspace. It is a part of cyberspace, sort of the infrastructure (I won't use that other term for it because I know how mad it makes you to hear these silly overused buzzwords).

alex

Re:Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

Hay, my name's David, not Eistein, and I don't appreciate sarcasm. Okay?

Anyway, you're saying that Internet itself is cyberspace? That's interesting. Internet is simply a collection of nodes that can send packets to each other. Anything above that is application-specific. Therefore, Internet itself cannot entail cyberspace, but only applications that use Internet.

As for the application, I think this all depends on how you would define "virtual rendering". If displaying any kind of information at all about the network is virtual rendering (this is one of the fundamental function of computers), then ping, finger, and netstat are part of cyberspace.

On the other hand, is generating some code based on the state of a database that can by written to by many people over the network, sending that code over the network, and then rendering the code into pixels that are in formation so as to make your brain think of certain abstract ideas virtual rendering of the network? Yeah. Then okay, Slashdot is cyberspace.

On the gripping hand, we aren't really rendering anything to do with the network at all. We are just using the network to transmit the ideas that we want to render. Therefore, Slashdot is not cyberspace.

You mentioned MPOGs and stuff. They are cyberspace unless you consider the last paragraph.

Hay, what about that Doom game? By itself, it's just rendering. But with that patch (sorry, I can't give you the URL) that somebody wrote so that a monster is created for every process on the system and shooting a monster kills the processes with which t is associated, then it becomes cyberspace, correct?

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

Hay, my name's David, not Eistein, and I don't appreciate sarcasm. Okay?

I'm sorry for calling you Einstein, David. No sarcasm. I guess I was frustrated because I felt you were pushing my buttons.

Anyway, you're saying that Internet itself is cyberspace? That's interesting. Internet is simply a collection of nodes that can send packets to each other. Anything above that is application-specific. Therefore, Internet itself cannot entail cyberspace, but only applications that use Internet.

No that is not what I am saying, either. If you read back to my second post you will see that my (personal) definition of cyberspace is "that place where you are when you are communicating with the world outside of your immediate surroundings." It seems to me that even the Internet is only a subset of cyberspace. Now, you can make up your own definition if you want but don't try to tell me that there is no such thing as an information space that we communicate through, seperate from the routers, nodes etc. I believe that it exists only as an abstract construct in my mind instead of as something tangible I can show you. If you look at a switch or a router when it is operating you don't immediately see all the conversations, games, commerce, etc that are flowing through them but that doesn't make all that social interaction less real. It happens in the mind. That's not the same as not being real.

As for the application, I think this all depends on how you would define "virtual rendering".

Rendering is a fairly well defined term in computer science. I don't see what there is to argue about. Your definition which seems to be something like "showing information about the current state of the network on any kind of display device" seems like a perfectly good take on it. Why does this matter, again?

On the gripping hand, we aren't really rendering anything to do with the network at all. We are just using the network to transmit the ideas that we want to render. Therefore, Slashdot is not cyberspace.

Ideas are being transmitted, through a communication medium (the network) and being rendered to a viewable form on your chosen output device, giving you a sense of a intangible (not the same as nonexistant) "virtual" world. How is that not a descrition of "cyberspace". You're going on and on about what it isn't but you still haven't said what it is. The word exists. I want to hear your definition, straight up, and why that thing that we all are using everyday doesn't exist, in terms that would convince a normal person (which I am).

Hay, what about that Doom game? By itself, it's just rendering. But with that patch (sorry, I can't give you the URL) that somebody wrote so that a monster is created for every process on the system and shooting a monster kills the processes with which t is associated, then it becomes cyberspace, correct?

I don't understand the distinction you're making here. I would say if you are playing doom online (even over a dialup with a single friend) then that could be considered cyberspace because the two of you are creating a virtual space between you to interact inside. A single player game running on only one machine is a virtual world but to me one step short of a cyberspace because there is no communication going on (between humans, at least.) I don't know why linking a monster in Doom with a process on the machine would make it cyberspace. This just reflects a very simplistic and limited understanding of networks. Killing a process in the virtual world is no different from killing a process from Windows task manager. Who cares how you control your system? The key concept is the space between communicating nodes, not linking a virtual world to the Real World. They always have to be linked that way or they are no use to us.

alex

Re:Freedom, normallity

[davidmccabe]

I suppose I misunderstood what your definition was. I thought you meant virtual rendering *about the network itself*, when in fact it seems you meant virtual rendering *using the network*.

Okay, that's cool.

Re:Freedom, normallity

[Amizell]

Well you could render information about the network - network management software like HP Openview and Unicenter TNG do just that - but the worlds are really only useful for the network admins and engineers who are monitoring it for faults. But if the WWW had a 3D stereoscopic interface along with some already-existing data glove type device it could be very similar to what Gibson was envisioning. A hyperlink in a 3D virtual world is like a "portal" between computers that allows for an illusion of seamless connection between the virtual spaces. Taken together all of that is what makes cyberspace. It is kind of an illusion, but we treat it as if it's real. BTW, I liked what you were saying about ping, tracert and netstat being part of cyberspace. Certainly they are part of it. Used to diagnose problems with the underlying equipment from the inside of the command-line virtual space.

aight then, nuff said.

alex

The law of steam engines...

[mangu]

That's, broadly, what is now called "patent law". Patents, as legislated in the last two centuries, are perfect for steam engines. One cannot easily carry away a 100-ton boiler, and any new ideas in the machine are quite evident from inspecting the mechanism.

Unfortunately, the concept of intellectual property is not as clear-cut in the internet. Files are copied instantly from one side of the globe to the other, and can you disassemble every binary file to look for stolen ideas?

When you transpose the traditional IP concept from patent and copyright law to the internet you may get anything, from digital dictatorship to outright piracy, depending on very fine points in detail interpretation.

The Internet is a different beast, period

[mooman]

While the analogy of the steam engine is striking, I'm not sure that we can easily find something that resembles the unique beast that the internet is...

It's an interesting nexus where we simultaneously have issues of:

• copyright and plagiarism (remember the lawsuits asserting caching proxies like Squid violate copyright laws?)
  
• free use (the various issues of anyone being able to link to proprietary content and attempts through legal disclaimers and contracts to prevent [or at least profit from] this...)
  
• obscenity laws (if pr0n is illegal in my community, is it when I access it on a server in the next state over?)
  
• taxation (they keep deferring it, but one of these days they have to pass some rules about taxing interstate e-commerce)
  
• The legality of retaliation denial-of-service attacks?
  
• The issues of privacy and the expense that spam imparts on the end user (the old "facsimile" comparison is hardly appropriate)
  
• The whole problem of how to charge/license for internet audio (like broadcast radio stations) and other media systems that breakdown when it's not a brick and mortar selling a magazine, newspaper, or radio program.
  
• Is it free speech to put up hate websites? Where people can organize into groups? Or sell memorabilia deemed inappropriate? (Think ebay and the nazi items)
  

I think we're only just now starting to get to the juicy issues. Much slack has been given to the Internet as a whole simply due to its novelty. Now that it's starting to coalesce into a more mature environment, some of those swarming buzzards are deciding to come roost on it..

We're going to get into even more sticky points when truly distributed computing and storage becomes more the norm and suddenly you can't just point to a box and say "that's where everything is. Apply your laws (privacy, taxation, copyright, etc) to it..."

The desire to keep it simple based on existing tort law is understandable, but I think they underestimate how many new legal scenarios we will be faced with simply because this beasty crosses into so many different realms...

Re:The Internet is a different beast, period

[mangu]

taxation (they keep deferring it, but one of these days they have to pass some rules about taxing interstate e-commerce)

Well, in this point, although not being a Gringo, I must admit the USA has a perfect legislative principle: "no taxation without representation". This has already been applied in the USA in mail-order commerce. The seller, not being in the same state as the buyer, cannot collect state taxes. It's up to the buyer to pay sales tax to the state. Guess how many buyers do that?

In my own country, Brazil, it's the opposite: sales tax is paid in the producing state, rather than in the consuming state. The result is that the richest states, where industries are, get richer while the poorest states get poorer. At the same time, the whole country gets a huge disadvantage in the balance of payments, since exports are taxed at the source, while exports from the USA are taxed only at the destination.

The end result of all that is that the sales tax in Brazil is in the 20%-35% range, while in the USA it may be as low as 3.25%.

But The Law of Steam Engine did exist...

[piotru]

As I remember, It was called the "Red Flag Act", enforced in England for... the safety of horse-driven carriages :-)
It has practically made impractical the use of steam-engine automobiles.

Any bells ringing?

Technology Changes Society and Laws

[MyHair]

When cars were widely available, new laws certainly came into effect.

And with steam engines came the locomotives and a need for standardizing time across time zones.

Technology isn't as revolutionary as some make it out to be, but it does change things. A comparison is made to telephone calls in the article, but no RIAA was created to prevent me from playing Van Halen on my phone and letting you record it. Why? Quality, convenience blah blah, etc.

I think in the case of the internet and laws with regard to Intellectual Property, the existing laws are ambiguous and/or insufficient for today's reality.

Deep-linking, terms of use, digital music/video/software are in a new venue with the internet. Owning a song was an easier concept with piano rolls, LP's, tapes and even CD's, but now some companies are trying to take away usage rights from us with the new technology when the new technology makes usage easier.

The right to swing my fist ends at your nose, but the argument can be hard to define when I buy a product from you and you tell me I can only use it a certain way and I have no recourse if it breaks. (Copy protected CD's/DVD's/etc.) I don't recall any book publishers printing books with ink that will fade in a certain number of years or if you cross a regional border.

And I don't recall a phone number having terms of use that were revealed after you dialed it.

I don't want to troll into yet another IP/RIAA/MPAA/KaZaA/Napster/whatever debate, but I just want to acknowledge that there is need for new precedent in the internet media. It's not controllable or accountable in the same way as communication was in the past, and society and the legal systems have to deal with that.

This coming from the same people who...

[sinister minister si]

Sued a freakin rock, as told on Slashdot's article this past Saturday

Acceptable letter replacements for editors.

[Restil]

PAN = BAN

WHO = TWO

Learning all sorts of new things today about acceptable letter replacement. I'll keep an eye out for more.

-Restil

Re:Acceptable letter replacements for editors.

[interiot]

Look up pan in a dictionary. That particular entry lists one meaning as "a harsh criticism". While the lawyers in mention have perhaps harsh criticism for cyber-silliness, they aren't calling for an outright ban on internet exceptions.

Technophilia?

[Ride-My-Rocket]

That's DISGUSTING!!

Tangible

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that probably separates the internet from most other inventions .. things like the car are tangible .. and can be contained and confiscated and governed by people within that area .. the internet just is(kind of) .. i just dont see how anyone can expect a lawyer in Boston to tell a child in belium that he cant do something .. a law here in the united states would normally only affect a person who is within the confines of this country .. maybe the UN should begin to govern it .. i dont know .. but there just cant be anyway for a lawyer in a US city to tell anyone outside the US what they can and cannot do ... of course IANAL

off the mark

[intermodal]

the point isnt exceptions. The point is that the internet invalidates current jurisdiction laws by being an international entity which cannot be ruled by a single government without fragmentation, which would end the internet and create two seperate networks, one of which would probably keep the title, and both of which would keep the name in common use i'm sure.

To boil down what the internet is: The internet is the world's largest TCP/IP Network. It is not controlled by any one country or entity. So basically, it's a giant WAN that has tried to become more than that and in the eyes of many (including lawmakers) has. The problem is not so much the technological advancements. The problem is the convergence of technological advances, which often results in contradictory laws. Telecommunications is one set of laws, publishing another, and intellectual property yet another (publishing being the act of distributing, IP being the act of ownership). The list is endless as to the different types of law which can collide.

Cyberignorance.

[Ziviyr]

The skeptics start by questioning the very existence of cyberspace, which they say is no more real than a "phone space" involving all the people on the telephone at a given time. They go on to argue that something happening online shouldn't be treated any differently by the law than if it occurred on Main Street.

First part makes sense, second part implies that one's use of the telephone in their own home is equivalent to using their telephone on "Main Street".

they all have as a core principle a rejection of the notion of "Internet exceptionalism," or the idea that the Internet is a new, unique thing that requires its own special laws. "The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"

Comparing steam engines and telecommunications devices is about as stupid as it gets, anyone should understand that much.

And they certainly deride the ideas behind the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace," which is posted on many Web sites and poses a "hands off" challenge to government.

I've never heard of this thing before, I don't recognize it, and I think that they're just using it as a straw to hold up and try to cover up their engines to telephones comparison. :-)

And most of the activists continue to see the Internet as a utopian ideal -- despite the fact that many progressives are beginning to worry that the Web is really just a very efficient way for companies to move white-collar U.S. jobs overseas.

Hey, any environment where we can't run up and kill each other in any meaningful sense has some utopian elements to it.

Reducing the internet to the web and defining it as a mechanism whose main purpose is to destroy american jobs is pretty goofy though. Tech has created quite a few jobs locally, as it has about everywhere else. Though I won't argue it overall helped or hurt, I just don't have any figures.

But what about his students? Well, he concedes, they're another matter. Many of them, with the passion of youth, are still enthralled with the whole idea of a separate universe, one they can call their own.

And you wouldn't consider an immersive conference call something to liken to a seperate universe?

Could someone make a picture of a whole bunch of people on "Main Street" talking into steam engines? It would summarize this article nicely. :-)

Free translation - what they really said

[WIAKywbfatw]

'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'

Classic marketing/financial services speak, to be expected from a banker quoted by the WSJ I suppose. Anyway, here's what that means:

"People who are keen on the internet don't look further than their noses and take a narrow view, have little consideration for what came before and have an unhealthy obsession for the latest technology and the next big thing."

A nice, sweeping generalisation, that's more anecdotal than scientific. (Or, put simpler, they don't have any numbers to back up what they say but, hey, everyone knows it's true don't they?)

If you can say something in an "artistic" way, use lots of long, fluffy words, instead of a straightforward manner, using plain, simple language, then a job in public relations or investment banking awaits you.

And people in those industries wonder why we don't believe everything they say...

Re:Free translation - what they really said

[Anonymous Coward]

The pot calling the kettle black.

Specialised legal study of open source

[LL]

Any law is basically a set of rules that citizens agree to abide by. By that definition, the GPL is a law. A number of specialised legal thinking is occuring to consider how to handle the various issues .... see for example in Australia

http://www.law.qut.edu.au/research/conference.js p# opensrc

We can apply certain principles of contract law and even tort, but ultimately, the unique economics of information services require somewhat different approach than matter-based products. For example, how do you price risk? Are the CreativeCommons an orthogonal set of "rights"? How does one detect and punish fraud (a big concern given the antics of Enwrong and WorldCon).

When the lawyers start getting their IP infringed upon, I'd like to see how they start to react :-).

LL

Sort of the same people, anyways.

[sinister minister si]

Lawyers sue people. Law commentators are almost the same. What do you want from me dammit! I pretty much hate lawyers right now due to some serious legal bullshit I'm enduring from one rogue attourney. Note to self... no more coffee before reading a legal-based story.

They've missed the boat

[jvmatthe]

"The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"

What kind of lame comparison is that? The steam engine is not a form of expression. The steam engine was not responsible for a mass communication at all levels (individual to individual, group to individual, etc.) that retains massive amounts of information, experiences, and ideas across geographical boundaries. Sure, it changed a lot of things, but it's influence falls in a completely different realm of human experience. Do we have special laws governing expression and speech? Sure we do, and we don't generally compare them to laws that govern commerce, as we might with the steam engine.

The skeptics start by questioning the very existence of cyberspace, which they say is no more real than a "phone space" involving all the people on the telephone at a given time.

Um...hello!? Just about all laws are based on mental constructs that we collectively decide upon as a community. The community feels that cybersapce is something different, and these guys don't get to tell us otherwise. Also, the nature of communication over a phone is of such a different nature that to compare them is terribly short-sighted.

Sorry, but these guys sound like they just want to be contrarians, staking out a radical position for the sake of academic interest.

Re:They've missed the boat

[sir99]

I like your point about communities. Not only can the "community [feel] that cyberspace is something different," but the community can basically exist in cyberspace, because physically, they're spread over a huge area. Furthermore, Internet communities make their own rules, in the form of "'netiqutte," almost like a set of laws.

It's also interesting to note that while you say they take a radical position, they would probably call you the radical.

Answer

[puckhead]

Priviledge. Rights are not things or activities.

thank god

[Anonymous Coward]

has the fact that most of what transpired on
Napster was theft escaped most of you idiots?
sure, I used it, but I didn't kid myself about
what I was doing.

Wow

[Raul654]

nihilistic technofetishist

I thought for sure that would be a successful googlewhack... pity.

you do have to try to avoid them though

[Trepidity]

If someone jumps out in front of you and you don't have time to stop, then it really isn't your fault, and the law sensibly doesn't hold you accountable. But you can't just plow through a jaywalker simply because he was in the street illegally -- if you can avoid hitting the jaywalker, you must do so.

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Issue9mm]

I don't know that you HAVE to try to avoid them, really, but I do guess you'd be charged with manslaughter if you didn't.

I'm not entirely clear on the subject, other than a friend of mine was sued by Johnny Cochran (yes THAT Johnny Cochran) for accidentally hitting two kids in the middle of the road.

They weren't in the crosswalk, and my friend couldn't see them because she was behind a U-Haul that swerved to avoid hitting the kids at the last second. Since she didn't have the view that the U-Haul did, the case was dismissed. For the record, she didn't try not to hit them, because she just didn't see them at all, and when she did, didn't have enough time to react even to apply the brakes.

That said, she was found innocent of manslaughter, and Johnny's civil suit was dismissed altogether.

-9mm-

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[UranusReallyHertz]

So I can assume that both children were killed? God, I don't know if I could live with that kind of guilt. Maybe have to kill my self and will everything to the parents.

This all reminds me of the Crossing Guard. Good movie.

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to have a manslaughter case with living victims... at least one kid died.

The thing is, she's not guilty... I'm sure you can sympathize with the poor woman who couldn't have done anything differently (without foreknowledge).

It's a horrible event, but really, it was an accident, and noone should be feeling guilty. Naturally the woman probably felt and still feels like shit, any decent person would, but she shouldn't be feeling guilty.

Frankly, the closest thing to a guilty party here was the truck driver!

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Issue9mm]

Yeah. I think both kids died actually, but one of them might have lived.

She felt terrible for weeks, and couldn't go to work or even begin to crack a smile. The accident totalled her car completely (Honda Civic, in case anyone's wondering), despite its relatively new condition.

Naturally, her insurance went up immediately, despite her having been found innocent of any wrongdoing.

-9mm-

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[DEBEDb]

So I can assume that both children were killed? God, I don't know if I could live with that kind of guilt. Maybe have to kill my self and will everything to the parents.

You can still do it, it's never too late...

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[SnapShot]

News flash! If she was so close behind the U-Haul that she wasn't able to react in time, then in my opinion she was partially at fault. It's called tailgating. It should be illegal.

Maybe those kids would be alive today if she didn't tailgate. An increase on her insurance rates is a pretty minor penalty for her poor driving habits.

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprising that she got away with manslaughter, 'cause if she'd been using the "two second" rule -- ie. that there should be a two-second gap between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you -- she'd very likely have had time to brake and swerve.

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Anonymous Coward]

Another newsflash:

U-Hauls are not transparent from any distance.

I get pissed off when I'm sitting behind ANY kind of large vehicle, because I can't see SHIT in front of me, no matter how far from the vehicle I am.

Unless the woman was willing to travel several carlengths behind the Uhaul (to give herself time to react to things that might pop out at the last minute), she probably couldn't have done anything. Driving several carlengths away from every vehicle is obviously impractical.

Worth pointing out also that neither you nor I know the exact details of the accident...

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[SnapShot]

Well, AC, if you can't see the road in front of you then driving several car lengths behind is what you are supposed to do and I guess I don't see what is "impractical" about driving in a way that is less likely to get people killed.

What are the alternatives? Just assuming that nothing will ever cause the car in front of you to brake suddenly may work in your fantasy world, but in the real world it gets people killed.

Re:you do have to try to avoid them though

[Anonymous Coward]

Just assuming that nothing will ever cause the car in front of you to brake suddenly may work in your fantasy world, but in the real world it gets people killed.

That's presuming a bit much - you don't have to be several car lengths behind another vehicle to stop safely - this was not the problem. You demonstrate severe misunderstanding of the story. Comprehension time!

YHBT

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, I quite enjoyed feeding your troll tonight. Were you the original poster of those racist comments too?

-- That 'Nigerian' guy

Re:YHBT

[perl_god]

Thank you sir, you were magnificent as well. And no, I can not take credit for the original flame.
An all- around exceptional group effort!
And I encourage you to give your "Nigerian" a name. Come out from behind AC obscurity!

Information integration: have no fear

[Dalcius]

I'm really sorry...

+5 interesting to parent

It's so obvious, it stings like a hard slap in the face, but it is very true.

My own addition:

Insufficient perspective? While /. can be very one sided, it seems to me that we get plenty of perspectives here.

Disdain for history? I am a big history buff, myself. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't see how this generalization can be true.

"The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"

The steam engine didn't allow for near instantanious sharing of nearly all information, either.

Unnecessary futurology? This is why I agree with what Tackhead said regarding "disdain for the possibilities of the future." This is the first time in human history when instant communication and information sharing is availiable to so many people at once. Telegraphs and phones came close, but now instead of talking to a person, we have entire BOOKS available.

Why should we be afraid to take this as far as we can? The Internet, while allowing for online ordering, cyber-terrorism, and the like, also allows for the instant sharing of information by anyone with access -- almost all information, at least right now. We need laws to protect us from identity theft, etc., but we should not fear information integration.

Someone else missed the point!

[werdna]

Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet.

Straw man. The "assumption" is not that "one nation's laws can be binding on ... the internet." It is merely that a nation's laws can be binding upon the French subsidiary of Yahoo, over whom it had plain and simple jurisidiction. As much as some would like to pretend that Yahoo France is a "virtual" company residing in the internet, the Nazi paraphernalia case is a very bad poster boy for accusations of virtual jurisdiction.

Yahoo WAS a bad citizen in this case, and was slammed accordingly. Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France -- a place brutally savaged by the Nazis. France applied its own law as against its own corporate citizen and its parent, a citizen that faced pretty bad and ugly facts in its own defense, using traditional notions of extraterritoriality.

Yahoo is probably not the best example to suggest that these authors don't "get it." Indeed, the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law as he insists these jurists are having difficulty understanding the tech.

Re:Someone else missed the point!

[sconeu]

Yahoo WAS a bad citizen in this case, and was slammed accordingly. Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France -- a place brutally savaged by the Nazis. France applied its own law as against its own corporate citizen and its parent, a citizen that faced pretty bad and ugly facts in its own defense, using traditional notions of extraterritoriality.

But yahoo.fr DID ban those sales. Yahoo.fr is the French subsidiary. That wasn't good enough for the French court, they insisted that Yahoo.com (which was the US version) ban them too. That's what got everyone hot and bothered.

What's next, letting Saudi Arabia determine what is and isn't acceptable in the way of female pictures?

Re:Someone else missed the point!

[Fjord]

The point is that France couldn't have done anything to Yahoo if they weren't already on their soil. But because Yahoo had a subsidiary in France, it was bound to their laws.

If they really wanted to put Nazi memorabilia up, then they could have closed their French offices. It's not like the U.S. would extradite them. The executive staff would probably end up barred from France for life (or have to serve the sentance), but that it still France exerting power within it's own jurisdiction.

As for analogous non-internet laws, the U.S. has the Helms-Burton act that prevents companies that trade in the U.S. from also trading in Cuban good that were nationalized even outside of the U.S. There are a lot of laws like this.

Re:Someone else missed the point!

[dillon_rinker]

What's next is letting the US decide that if anyone named "DeBeers" steps on US soil, they are toast.

Re:Someone else missed the point!

[ethereal]

...Or that if Henry Kissinger goes to visit Europe, he might have some problems getting home again :)

I am not a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must you falsely represent me? I am not a troll, and perl_god has not been trolled. Racism is a legitimate issue and it seems to be so common here on Slashdot. I am offended by the use of the words n*****s and c***s, it's really pissing me off now. Am I going to have to report this to Jesse Jackson?

-The REAL Nigerian Guy

Re:I am not a troll

[perl_god]

Sh**t t*e f*c* **, Y*ou s*t*p** go**am* n***** !

*t'* *oon* l**e **u Th*t *r* sen**in* th*s c**nt*y *own th* shitter!!!!

"Law of the Horse", by Lessig

[Animats]

First, this looks like a rehash of Lawrence Lessig's paper, The Law of the Horse. In that paper, Lessig makes similar claims, including that there was no "law of the horse", and arguing by analogy that we don't need new law for cyberspace.

In fact, Lessing was wrong - there is a "law of the horse". One of the earliest legal codes we have, from one of the Scandanavian kings (Ranulf?), has at least two horse-specific laws. And they're interesting.

One law provided that, if a horseshoer made a horse temporarily lame, (which happens occasionally, more often with inept horseshoers) they had to provide a loaner horse until the hoof healed up. This is perhaps the first piece of consumer protection legislation. Note that it's very specific, and, like modern "lemon laws", places the blame unambiguously on the service provider. It's not a general tort or liability law; it's a law that arbitrarily assigns blame for a specific, common problem.

Another law provided that that if someone borrowed a horse and rode it around the village, they were guilty of a minor offense, but if they rode it out of the village, they were guilty of a major offense. Some jurisdictions make that distinction today in auto theft cases, mostly for juveniles.

So the law of the horse did exist when horses were important.

There's a sizable law of steam. Start with the ASME Boiler Code, which is very specific and has the force of law in many countries. Boilers used to blow up frequently before there was law that set standards for boilers and the people who design and build them. The U.S. safety regulations for steam locomotives (49 CFR 230) are still valid and enforced. There's a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.

For a history of the law of steam, see page 35 of this recent boiler explosion investigation report. There's a law of steam for good reason. The first law of steam was enacted in the US in 1838, after a riverboat blew up, killing 300 people. The issue remains; a steam locomotive blew up in 1995, killing several people.

Thus, claims that there is no "law of the horse" or "law of steam" are false. Such laws exist.

Re:"Law of the Horse", by Lessig

[Artagel]

Lessig's article is a response to a talk by a well-known federal judge. (Actually, there are a number of articles written in response to this particular talk...) An edited transcript of the talk can be found at: on the web.

Venue is not new

[idonotexist]

This is not new. If a person sues a mail order company, where is the case going to be held? The same principals that have historically been found in contract law between two parties who form an obligation in differentjurisdictions should apply to cybercases and I have not seen a compelling argument to demonstrate that Congress and the Judiciary should tackle the Internet CyberHighWay with new laws.

Re:Venue is not new

[Asic Eng]

If a person sues a mail order company, where is the case going to be held?

This is much easier than on the internet. The mail order company is incorporated somewhere - that's their location. What if the company operates in Denmark, but the server is in the US, and the domain name is Greek?

What if a website is hosted in the Netherlands, and the content is illegal in the US? (Certain types of pornography for example.) Does it matter if the site owner is American? Does the language of the web site matter?

From what I've been hearing in the news, the courts do have problems with these issues, and they have come to rather contradictory results.

I'm not sure whether new laws are necessary, but there are certainly new problems.

Hasn't Changed Enough...yet

[reallocate]

Although it has become a cliche to point to the trans-border aspect of the Internet, a lot of stuff moves "transparently" across borders: electricity, oil. food, mail, radio, TV, etc. Roads have been "ignoring" political boundaries for centuries.

Laws come from legislatures. Legislatures are tied to the nation-state. Until an entity emerges with a political scope to match the Internet's scope, it doesn't make much sense to talk about so-called cyberlaw. Individual legislatures will continue to act as they see fit.

What's different about the internet....

[os2fan]

Plenty.

The purpose of laws is to provide checks and balances that are not provided naturally. In this light, it functions like a dam wall, where the surrounding hills do most of the holding of water.

With the advent of computers, the main check and balance (the cost of copying and distribution) for things like privacy, copyright, etc, is no longer there.

So what happens, is that to print off a copy of a book or record, I'd need to invest in a suitable press (and such activity is not easy to hide), for copying music now, all I need is a program and a computer, both of which are elsewhise legitimate.

A train, or a car, or even an aeroplane, is in essence, a fast mode of transport. It is still a thing on the road, it just moves quicker. Of course, there are law modifications to adjust for this. In some cases, we give them new roads.

The internet, etc, is something fundementally new, in that the laws are based on the assumption that copying and collecting and analysing data is a fairly expensive activity. Nothing is now further from the truth.

Until we find a way to deal with this issue, we will have any number of problems.

700 railroads bankrupt

[wytcld]

No new laws were made for railroads. 700 railroads went bankrupt in America in the last decades of the 1800's. No new laws were made for the Internet. How many dot.coms went bankrupt now?

How can we expect continued innovations in infrastructure if we don't right now commit ourselves that the next time an important advance comes around, we will immediately pass laws to be sure that those who invest their time and/or capital into building that infrastructure will all get their just share of the gains - and not end up impoverished while society happily rides the rails and surfs the Net?
___

Re:700 railroads bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

What laws would have prevented these companies from going out of business? What we saw recently with the dot coms and in the 1800's with the trains was simply that society gets swept up in a fever when major new technologies come along. Nothing more, nothing less. What law exactly could you pass to stop people from investing in pets dot com? It wasn't exactly a good idea, really, was it? Would you disallow them from investing to begin with? That seems to me to limit their freedom a bit, in a way that I'd rather not see...

I do not think that you have created any connection between the passing of laws and the companies going bankrupt, anyway, and that seems to be rather a leap. You can't exactly legislate profits at a venture.

substance?

[startled]

Perhaps I'm asking for too much from a short piece, but I wasn't clear on what it was about before or after reading it. Okay, so there's one example of a case in France. Great, now we're getting somewhere-- but it stops there.

What are they talking about? What special laws are they referring to? So, first, we take as a given that there are jurisdictional issues with someone putting up something on a server in Texas, and someone reading it in Germany. And, yes, lawyers and politicians are trying to figure this out. The article does say that it's useful to think of it as a bunch of computers being connected and sending around bits-- thanks.

I'm just asking, because this sounds like an interesting article. There very well might be internet-specific laws. There might be examples of cases making internet exceptions, or not making internet exceptions. I don't know-- I'd like to find out. But this article didn't say a damned thing.

oh yeah?!

[pizza_milkshake]

'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'" oh yeah?! well... my dad could beat up their dads!

It works both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, if we're to take that criticism (we're all a bunch of dreamers, with no sense of history), we should all realize that the *lawmakers* are taking the same view, with legislation like the DMCA and proposed CBDTPA.

If you look at it one way, the automobile forced the imposition of the speed limit; if you look at it another, it *raised* the limit. These naysayers are asking us to swallow our medicine for the sake of the status quo, but I'd argue that we have a choice- we can extend the (tax-free/public domain) commons, and reap the benefits- open source development, derivative music, art, and science- or we can hobble ourselves, and demand our new technology be crippled to the level of the horse and buggy for the sake of 'the children' (and a few dozen oligopolies).

Of course they're different.

[elronxenu]

Yes, very different.

The Steam Engine didn't deliver 2+ gigs of pr0n into my newsserver every day.

Subject Matter Specialties

[plgs]

We have Shipping Law,
Trade Law,
Aerospace Law,
Media Law,
Entertainment Law,
Mining & Resources Law,
Telecommunications Law,
Why not Cyberlaw?

It's not that the law is different, it's just another subject-matter specialty.

Right conclusion, wrong evidence.

[Paul the Bold]

I think the author has a very good point to make. Unfortunately, the author misses it. Let us suppose that he is correct, that there should be no special new laws regarding the internet. It is just a bunch of computers linked by cable and fiber, that it is not "cyberspace" any more than telephone users create "telephonespace". There should be no special laws, because it is just people communicating. Then why does the DMCA exist? What about the CDBPTA? These are special laws.

His point is valid, but he misses the mark. All we want is a guarantee of freedom of expression. He selects a difficult case, one that many of us (myself included) do not understand. The author concludes that our misunderstanding of international and French law means that we want special rights. The people who are really pushing for special new cyberlaws are the RIAA and the MPAA. We don't want special laws, we just want our constitutional rights.

Yes, the author is right, there are people who want special rights online. However, he presents the wrong group.

Re:Right conclusion, wrong evidence.

[Arandir]

There should be no special laws, because it is just people communicating. Then why does the DMCA exist? What about the CDBPTA? These are special laws.

The article talked about two broad categories of people: those who want cyberspace to be an expection and those who don't. But not everyone in the former category are cyberbuffs. Some want to place special restrictive exceptions on cyberspace.

Those who want special immunity exceptions are every bit as wrong as those who want special restrictive exceptions. Laws which are not uniform or impartial are bad laws, regardless of whether they are to your benefit.

I think you need to re-read the article and understand what it is saying rather than what you think it is saying. You enemy isn't the "cyberskeptic". You enemy is the exceptionalist who wants there to be exceptions to the law. Microsoft isn't a cyberskeptic. The RIAA isn't a cyberskeptic. The MPAA isn't a cyberskeptic. They are every bit as technocratically elitist as you.

Re:Right conclusion, wrong evidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA exists because people are stupid... oogle must go work, no time to comment on CDBPTA

...and laws change with them...

[The Monster]

Comparing the information highway to the steam engine highway is innacurite [sic]

Well, any analogy is flawed, but some aspects of the comparison are valid... The steam engine
transformed society in ways that never could have been imagined before. It made possible
industrial techniques and housing patterns that couldn't exist without it. The internal combustion
engine accelerated these effects.

The biggest difference between 'cyberspace' and all previous inventions (other than, to a much
lesser extent, radio and TV) is the fact that it defies geographic classification into legal
jurisdictions. For example, when I post this, am I doing it in

• Kansas (where my home is)
• Missouri (where my ISP is, at least locally)
• Virginia (where their domain is registered)
• Massachussets (where Andover.net, official Registrant for slashdot.org is),
• the physical location of the server(s) that the domain points to, if not any of the above
• Each of the sundry locations of /. readers
• All of the above, plus every single router in between

???

We laugh at the hubris of the {French|German|Dutch|*} government trying to prevent servers
located in another country from carrying 'illicit' material. Until they go after DNS, routers, or other
servers that are within their borders to prevent them from moving Evil Bits from those sites.

Each of these other inventions brought with them entire agencies to police the technology. It's just
a matter of time before this one gets the same treatment.

Re:...and laws change with them...

[groomed]

For example, when I post this, am I doing it in ...

How is this different from the issues surrounding snailmail?

Re:...and laws change with them...

[SnapShot]

If I send information on birth control by snail mail to a cousin in England I can be pretty sure it isn't going to be routed through Saudi Arabia.

If I send that same information by email am I guilty of breaking some fundementalist religious law if a router happens to send some packets through that country.

Re:...and laws change with them...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I send that same information by email am I guilty of breaking some fundementalist religious law if a router happens to send some packets through that country.

Are fundamentalists smart enough to be administrating these routers or otherwise know these packets are passing by?

They seem to be pretty single minded. What's more, isn't a router a tool of satan or something? ; )

The real radicals

[Anonymous Coward]

These mainstream people are absolutely correct and we should make it clear we support their argument in every way. There certainly are some radicals who believe that the internet requires fundimental consitutional rights to one's own home and property (4th ammendment), to freedom of speech, and legal concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" need to be overturned because the internet and computing is somehow "different and dangerous". These radicals pass laws like the DMCA.

We need to make the mainstream legal minds understand how radical these notions are and why they should support the same level of consitutional and legal protections we have enjoyed in the past. Rather than ajitating and advocating for a changes in IP law or nice sounding concepts like "code is speech" or new ideas of freedom, we first need to be able to retain the freedoms that had existed for the past 200 years, as this is what is being changed. In this, I believe we can easily find common ground with the established legal thinking behind the people who wrote that opinion piece and find common ground against the real radicals.

This article is clearly propaganda

[bigsexyjoe]

I agree. This article is intentionally vague. It does not say what their stances are because you might not agree. IMNVHO (in my not very humble opinion), it is really just propagada for the media companies and RIAA and whoever.

The article basically says: You know there are people who say that there should be less freedom on the internet. They're smart and reputable and they have good points.

They (correctly) assume that most people will skim over the article, not think about it but assume these legal experts do have some good points.

No sense of history

[fname]

One of the best points made was that the internet users calling for the need for new laws, and the technophiliacs, have a poor sense of history. This discussion proves that point.

The rise of the internet is great, but is it more of a transforming technology than was the train (overland transport), telephone (a system of contacting another user via voice-- beats IM and email), or radio? What about the birth control pill, moving pictures, sliced bread and the lightbulb? The internet is big, and changes a lot, but c'mon, is it really bigger than the pull-tab beer can?

Equal Law

[Anonymous Coward]

If you treat the internet as separate and different, you are giving up protections from already establisted laws and precedents. For example, there are already laws on the books making the sending of 'junk faxes' a civil (and i think even criminal) crime, because businesses are paying for the phone line and the fax equipment.
If were were to extend this law to email, which should have been done, there would be no battle against spam right now; the issue was already settled. Obviously, the people abusing the internet for profit are the ones lobbying for separate laws (spammers, cybersquatters, scammers, virus writers, etc). And as unpopular as it may be here, even hackers- it is no more legal to break into someone's network as it is to break a window and roam around their building.

why not consider the internet a separate universe?

[ashkar]

I fail to see a good argument against treating the internet as separate from an individual country.

The internet cannot be regulated by any existing government due to its non-physical existance. Sure you can say that all the servers, nodes, routers, wires, and even electrons exist physically, but the information they represent, the internet, does not. No one can claim a right to control something that they do not own.

That is akin to saying that all the air in my house is mine, and even if it leaves my house, it is still mine. Even the most braindead judge would not listen to such a charge, yet they say much the same about those subatomic particles that run our world.

Now if I take down a server, causing customers to go to another company to do business, or, if I use up large amounts of a company or persons bandwith, then I should be held liable for such. No matter what anybody says, preventing somebody the use of anything they have paid for is theft or vandalism, depending on the case.

But these lawyers and "legal experts" that desire censorship, and commercial or governmental control of the internet and other electronic networks are riding on ways of thinking that should have died with the horse and buggy. The internet does not need the legal systems so necessary in the physical world.

The students studying cyberlaw are on the right track. They realize that the electronic community is a whole new world. Hopefully more people will come to realize this.

Name ONE good cyberlaw

[ukryule]

Everyone here seems to be railing against these 'cyberskeptics', saying they're out of touch with technology, trying to stifle the net, etc. So if you're for internet legislation, here's a challenge:
Name one cyberlaw that you approve of.
DMCA perhaps? Internet Radio legislation?

OK. If that's too hard: name one law which you want to be applied everywhere except the internet.
Copyright? You want it to be legal to download MP3s but not make your own tapes? Want the freedom of speech not to apply to the net?

Sure, the internet has raised some issues with existing laws which have to be addressed (e.g. copyright, international law) - but I can't think of a single thing that I would want to be legal on the internet, and not outside it (or vice versa).

Why on earth is the whole of Slashdot arguing for more internet legislation?

Re:Name ONE good cyberlaw

[sir99]

Why on earth is the whole of Slashdot arguing for more internet legislation?

They're not. Several posts have recognized that the peculiar accusations of these "cyberskeptics" (oh how I hate "cyber-" words) against "cyberbuffs" don't accurately describe the "technophiles'" beliefs.

I get the impression from the article that these skeptics think technophiles are a bunch of whiny, arrogant, short-sited buffoons (well, this is slashdot). But it's not the technophiles who want more legislation, it's the technophobes, like the RIAA, censorship advocates, and other business interests.

These skeptics don't even understand who they should be accusing of short-sitedness (besides themselves). They seem too confused to be considered authorities on the subject, yet they're publishing articles about their views, which are widely read by lawyerly people.

I for one would be thrilled if new Internet legislation was halted, or even mostly repealed. I think many slashdotters would be with me on this.

Maritime law as a precedent

[sdr]

A very good precedent for treating the internet is maritime law. The problem is somewhat similar. When you are in international water it is not exactly clear what law should apply to you. A large body of law exist that govern precisely those situations. A similar approach to internet might be the best.

Railroads DO have special laws!

[Jim Efaw]

Few industries receive as much specific attention from the law as railroads. Railroads, especially in the United States and Canada, were the only heavy transportation that mattered for decades; as a result, they affected just about every industry, the politics of the entire continent, and society in general; and the laws, even today, reflect how influential the railroads were. Ever looked at the United States Code or the U.S. state's typical statutes? American laws were customized for railroads early and often in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Special railroad laws are still all over the place. U.S.C. Title 45 (out of 50) is nothing but railroads, and that's just some of the railroad law. Among lots of other things (if I recall correctly): they get special treatment when obtaining the right-of-way; the labor laws treat railroad workers differently; and they even have separate federal retirement from Social Security. I'm sure the laws in other countries address railroads extensively also.

Re:Railroads DO have special laws!

[signifying nothing]

I'm sure the laws in other countries address railroads extensively also.

Indeed they do - in the UK, a new form of parliamentary procedure was invented just to process the vast quantity of railway-related acts.

Re:Railroads DO have special laws!

[crumley]

I agree with you overall, but I think that you went a little too far with this point:

Railroads, especially in the United States and Canada, were the only heavy transportation that mattered for decades;

I think most people involved with water borne freight will disagree with you. Shipping pre-dates railroads by quite a bit and has been an important form of heavy transport throughout the history of the US. Its still crucial form of transport from the oceans, to the Great Lakes, and to Mississippi/Ohio River system.

Sure, water borne traffic is more limited by geography than the rails, but it is still important.

One small note

[Anonymous Coward]

JurisDiction :)

Legal Pundit

[dch111]

So, if I understand this right , IF I pissed in your pocket and told you that it was raining , by Law , you are required to believe it?

Summarized

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet doesn't need new laws.

The internet needs new laws.

I'm sorry I can't write something more coherent.

(heh)

How come the experts in technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

... are those who never use technology?

How come they never interview people in the know?
I've been programming since I was 8 and I'm not an expert but I know 10 times what these so called EXPERTS know. Oh, I know they read a book about a guy who had ideas about technology so that must make them an expert.

Stupid world we live in. I think journalists should stop selling sensationalism.

OK, I ADMIT IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true, I can't deny it anymore, coming out of the closet as a public AC.

I tried technophilia, but I didn't like it, kept getting poked by all them wires and drive doo-dads and stuff.

T'weren't really no fun....

poor little goth kid (was: Re:Wow

[RevDobbs]

Great, now everyone who googles ` nihilistic technofetishist` is going to slashdot some sorry goff kid's website.

Time Zones

[kirkjobsluder]

Um, didn't the railroads create a need for the federal government to enforce standardized time zoned. For another example of law applying to a specific information technology, what about the regulation of radio in the early 20th century to reduce interferance.

Scarcity, copyrights, and spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, the same scarcity arguments apply to spam as well. It used to cost money to send junk mail. Now it doesn't. The introduction of digital technology in the mix has eliminated that expense.

Just because something's technologically possible doesn't make it right, though. I believe that spam == coercion whenever it is unsolicited: that engaging my attention without my consent is a crime. And I'd like to replace SMTP with a protocol which implements the idea that "appending to my mailbox" is a privileged operation that needs authentication and permission.

I like their thinking because......

[Anonymous Coward]

the same laws that let me buy a car and work under the hood will let me buy software and reverse engineer it. And M$ would have to supply guarantees too. And ISP's would be legally liable for service just like phone companies. Programmers would have to think aswell as just "code" crap. Can you tell i'm a netadmin who is legally liable for things that go wrong.

I went through that

[Raul654]

I'd like to say, having had my Western Digital drive fail me last month (RMA # 4804884). The real salt-in-the-open-wound occured when I was filling out the return forms -- they make you agree to the disclaimer on the return receipt : "I do not hold Western digital liable for data lost"... isn't that akin to a car manufacturer saying that if you die in a fiery wreck because of a defect in their car, it's not their fault? Or, as in the example, if the company in question makes you waive any future liablitity on their part before you can have the pacemaker implanted.

Academic Publishing

[Anonymous Coward]

Academics do not in the main need copyright to give them financial incentives to publish. They have traditionally depended on large publishers to print and distribute their periodicals (at prices that would disgust any honest taxpayer). It is only a matter of time before the younger generation takes control of the professional associations and moves the bulk of creative and scientific academic discourse online.

Yes and no

[DEBEDb]

'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.'

Just because it has happened this way doesn't mean that this was the right way.

To suggest a bad analogy, just because I have just drove home drunk for about 30 miles doesn't mean it's a good idea. So while drawing on the past is important in order to understand how to behave in the future, it does not at all mean that we should continue doing the same thing no matter what changes are going on around us.

technophiles want LESS special case internet laws.

[DunbarTheInept]

If this guy thinks we want special case laws to exempt the internet, then he just hasn't been paying attention. What the "cyberbuffs' have been clamoring for for years now is to get the government to STOP making special case laws for the internet. It's not the technophiles who have been making special case internet-only laws, it's the technophobes, and it shows in the nature of the laws they come up with. Stuff that is perfectly legal offline, such as fair-use photocopying a small number of pages from a reference book, or copying a music album for the purpose of changing the recording media format for personal use (like converting old vinyl records to a cassette tape form), are becoming illegal when you do the equivilent on-line version of these activites.

So I say, *YES*, please DO get the government to treat the internet the same way everything else gets treated in public life, which means undoing the crap they've passed about it in the last few years. Destroy the DMCA, the CDAs I and II, and don't lie and call piracy theft. Theft implies that the original owner has had his property taken away rather than just copied. No, I'm not saying piracy is good, just that calling it theft puts the punishment out of proportion to the degree of the crime. Treating piracy as theft is like convicting someone for murder when all he did was get into a minor fist fight and nobody died.

Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we let them onto our streets? It's clear that they have mental problems. Far better to send them back to the jungle.

Shut up and buy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in Brown writes: "This article from today's Wall St. Journal (via MSNBC) presents the viewpoints of several legal commentators that the Internet should be treated like any other invention and not subject to novel legal interpretations. 'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.' Another quote: 'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'"

In other words, Shut Up And Buy!

Bah

[E-Rock-23]

Insufficient perspective? Disdain for History? You're confusing a standard geek with the wanton rednecks who buy PCs at Wal-Mart along with their shotguns for next "hunt'n seez'n?" They not only insulted my intelligence with that little remarm, but insulted everything that every AC that posts here stands for as well: Know-It-All-ism and a general case of holier-than-thou-itis.

Let the AC flame posts begin (you know you can't resist...)

Re:Bah

[E-Rock-23]

Oh. Remarm = remark. Better correct myself before it's made into a public spectacle. Damn my itchy click finger. Oh well, I'm human, what can ya do...

Re:Bah

[fgb]

Actually, I kind of like "remarm". It has a certain charm. ;)

Double Standard

[Bugmaster]

It is, apparently, perfectly valid to make weird cyber-laws when they protect the profits of corporations (SSSCA or whatever it's called now days, DMCA, etc.), or Save Our Children (tm). It's only silly to make cyber-laws when they extend the rights of the consumer, instead.

Personally, I don't think there should be any "cyber"-specific laws. Fair use should be the same for books and data; child porn should be equally illegal in any medium; and producers of defective merchandise should be liable regardless of whether they sell spoons or software. But I guess starving lawyers need money too, so we should have as many new laws as possible...

Commerce V. eCommerce

[Garry Anderson]

The US and UN authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries to aid and abet corporations in the abuse of their trademark powers. This is an unlawful act. They know the solution to trademark problems on the Internet.

You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'APPLE'.

"Apple" is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.

"BUT", I hear you say, followed by many reasons why they cannot co-exist without conflict on the Internet.

These reasons are based on PROPAGANDA, SPIN and LIES.

Fact 1: In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark; e.g. a new protected TLD of .reg - as in apple.reg

Just like the registered trademark symbol ® - this could serve the same purpose - to advise the public that it is legally registered and protected by law.

This .reg would be protected like .gov sites, so preventing passing off and any conflict with the majority of non-trademark domains. It acts as certificate of authentication.

Fact 2: Given that each country has its own trademark system and can use the same words as another, the country is absolutely essential - as in apple.us.reg

Fact 3: It is illegal for one to prevent others from using their trademark. To allow this without consumer confusion or trademark conflict, it is absolutely essential that the class or subclass is included (e.g. computer) - as in apple.computer.us.reg

Can you tell the difference between apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?

Of course you can. Being text based it is easier than using the phone.

Current .com domains and new protected TLDs could be used by trademarks for advertising purposes - then redirected to the .reg site e.g. apple.computer or nissan.car

This is all about corrupt authorities aiding and abetting corporations to abuse the Law.

Please visit WIPO.org.uk - World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !

Google proves them wrong!

[robolemon]

From article:

"cyberbuffs are afflicted with 'insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia.'"

I wanted to make sure these accusations hold water, so I performed a highly scientific analysis on the Internet. From the looks of it, he characterized cyberbuffs incorrectly on each count!

Google results for:

• "insufficient perspective" - 31
• "sufficient perspective" - 293

Perspective is obviously sufficient more often than not on the Internet!

• "disdain for history" - 52
• "passion for history" - 2490

For every Internet user with a disdain for history there are 500 others with a passion!

• "unnecessary futurology" - 1
• "necessary futurology" - 0

Looks to me like the author made this one up. No mention of futurology being either necessary or unnecessary except for a copy of his article itself!

• "technophilia" - 3,810
• "technophobia" - 10,900

This is perhaps the most shocking result of all! I guess if you're scared of technology you're more likely to use the Internet? Strange but true.

Trains & such

[bryanp]

"Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made. "

Uh, no. I don't disagree with your point entirely, but you really don't get it re trains. Yes, people "knew how to get from point a to point b", but the train did much more than make it fast. It made it *safe*. It made it so that people could travel from one end of the continental US in a few days (in relative safety) instead of months fraught with risk.

You would be just as (in)correct to say "Gutenberg didn't do anything special. People already knew how to make books. It just took a lot of monks with some time on their hands. He just made it a lot easier to get the words on to the page much more quickly."

Consider your analogies people.

There are laws for trains

[yellowstuff]

The analogy doesn't even work for trains. When the railroads were being built in the US, law was quick to change to accomadate them. For example, the law of fire negligence in West Virginia.

Trains?

[chrispl]

Where does it say anything about trains?

"The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"

What he is talking about here is the steam engine that (for example) powered factories, equipment in mines and early powerplants in the last two centuries. Yes, using it to get from one place to another by attaching wheels (or a paddle) was one application of the steam engine.

By applying this new technology to many different problems it gave people a new way to accomplish old tasks, opened up new possibilities and entire industies were born.

Does the above sentence sound familiar? It could just as easely be applied to the internet.

Whats different about the internet is its international nature and distruction of social barriers that an unhindered global flow of information causes.

That and being still very "new" to most of the population, people are scared of it because they do not understand what it is. Just as people seeing a train for the first time may have thought of it as a monster without realising that it is a just another great advancement in human technology.

The internet is just another technological advancement and will influence laws in time just like any major invention that impacts our lives.

That is erroneous on several fronts

[FreeUser]

Trains were not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to get from point a to point b, a train just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for trains would need to be made.

It could be argued that "the internet is not a revolution, just an evolution. People already knew how to communicate with one another across great distances, the internet just made the process faster. There's no reason laws for the internet would need to be made."

Do we need laws to govern the internet? I would say that it is unlikely that we do, and that at the very least we need to proceed very, very carefully. Far better to pass a needed law too late, than to pass unnecessary, and harmful, legislation too early.

Do we need to restrict speech on the internet? No, not any more than we need to in real life.

What about child pornography? Already illegal ... apply the same law to the net as you would to physical copies of the same crap in the real world.

What about commerce? Our existing interstate commerce laws, tax regimes, etc. are more than sufficient and can be applied equally to online commerce as they are to brick and morter commerce. Buying something online should be no different, legally, than picking up the phone and ordering someting by voice.

What about 'online stalking.?' No different than making obscene or prank phone calls in the real world, or verbally harassing someone in person

What about the children?!? They are in no greater danger than they are when they are out on a public street, and just like in the physical world, it is the parent's responsibility to see to their children's safety, not the government, and certainly not at the expense of my constitutional rights.

I could go on and list virtually every subject which gets raised WRT the "need" to regulate the internet, and in each case point out that the application of existing law is more than sufficient to keep society on roughly the same even keel it has generally been all along.

The problem is that the media and copyright cartels see an opportunity to grab immense power, power that the courts (and even congress) has deliberately denied them in the past. However, the ludditism of Hollywood, the digital illiteracy of congress, and the legalized bribery we call campaign financing have all come together to produce a very dangerous mixture of political cluelessness and political will that may just result in these very powers being extended, with manditory DRM technology enshringing Microsoft's desktop monopoly into law and granting those very same Hollywood Luddites veto powers over the deployment of all new consumer technologies.

This should scare the shit out of any clear thinking individual.

You can steal something, without depriving it's owner of his property.

No, you can't. That sentance is in direct conflict with the very definition of stealing, as has been rehashed here and elsewhere numerous times.

Copyright Violation is not theft. It is not recognized as theft by the law or by any of the freely accessible dictionaries online.

In fact, the only place where copyright violation is considered theft is in the minds, and newspeak, of the copyright cartels, and those who thoughtlessly echo their propoganda.

Even in a nation increasingly afflicted with fictitious legal absurdities (like equating a corporation with a real, thinking, breathing person) we haven't even gone so far as to equate copyright violation and theft.

We should not engage in the absurd, legal fiction that communication over the internet is somehow fundamentally different than communication by telegraph, telephone, fax, snail mail, or an in person meeting over lunch. Fundamentally it isn't any different, it is merely more effecient.

Re:That is erroneous on several fronts

[catfood]

What about commerce? Our existing interstate commerce laws, tax regimes, etc. are more than sufficient and can be applied equally to online commerce as they are to brick and mort[a]r commerce. Buying something online should be no different, legally, than picking up the phone and ordering someting by voice.

Largely agreed with all of this. I'd like to add that there is some room for definitional tweaking, such as for Congress or the courts to resolve definitively where jurisdiction resides in an e-commerce dispute or which jurisdiction has taxing authority when product is shipped. What is a reasonable equivalent of a "signature" on a purchase order sent via the Internet or an EDI network? And so on.

These are minor details. These questions don't change the world.

But that's not the main point. The main point is that the Internet isn't magic. It's a bunch of computers all connected together, not fundamentally different from the telephone network. Society's rulebook doesn't have to be rewritten just because of a little change in technology.

Re:Things change but laws remain forever

[Anonymous Coward]

What these guys seem to be saying (the MSNBC article is very sketchy) is that the laws we have NOW are sufficient, and we don't need to write new ones.

For example, without the internet would the DMCA ever have been passed? That law, bought and paid for by an industry (like most laws) is a very good example of why these guys are right.

It's already illegal to sell copies of your CDs but was previously OK to give them away, but that freedom is being taken away by new internet laws.

I saw at a different nessageboard "He who does not learn from history is doomed to be crushed under my foot." It is very true that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

We have too many damned laws already, how about we repeal a few before we write any more?

-steve
Springfield Fragfest

Re:Exceptionalism: Who thinks scarcity of is GOOD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Artificial scarcity is an evil born of greed and power.

Examples of artificial scarcity- diamonds. Controlled almost entirely by one family, diamonds are incredibly expensive. If not for their scarcity, formerly from lack of technology but presently by legal monopoply, they would be as cheap as any other rock yet still as beautiful and useful. Their scarcity enriches one family at the expense of the entire world.

The price of silver dropped through the floor a decade or two ago, when two brothers' attempts to corner the market failed.

An item's value should is determined by its usefulness to you and its scarcity. Artificial scarcity is theift.

But of course!

[mwood]

Certainly we ought to look first to the traditions of the physical world when figuring out how or whether to regulate behavior on the 'net. If someone sneaks into my computer without my consent, he's trespassing, and if he had reason to believe that he was unwelcome then it's illegal entry; if he had to defeat my access controls, he's breaking and entering; if he takes something then he's a thief; if he intentionally breaks something, he's a vandal; and if he alters records, he's a forger. And he should go to jail. Physically. I am astonished at the number of people who have failed to understand this simple idea.

Pot to kettle... your black.

[Ominous Armed Cow]

"cyberbuffs are afflicted with insufficient perspective"

Whereas law professors, on the other hand, are veritable renaissance men of both thought and action, always ready to escape the bounds of their cluttered, paper-stacked offices just so they may exhibit their awesome command of contemporary events in the dim hope that insular smucks like us will see their example and perhaps strive, as they, to suck the marrow out of life.

No special laws?

[HiThere]

That might actually be good. It would get rid of the DMCA, e.g., and that would be worth a lot right there. Also the special classification of some cable providers as informations service providers, so that they don't need to share their lines. That would be worth deleting.

There are decent arguments that there shouldn't be any special laws. The troubles are with the special laws that have already been passed. It you want to make that argument, the first thing you need to do to prove that you are serious is to get rid of them.

Today is a good day for a rant.

[twitter]

You can usually find the skeptics in law journals rather than at tech conferences.

What a troll article. Proclaiming that people who may or may not have mastered a word processor are going to interpret the laws for us? The article touches on no specifics but flames away at computer users as ingnorant adlolesents. Would that be the "generation gap" troll? The "sceptics" no more exits outside the author's imagination than the blind straw men he creates to oppose them.

Those treatened by the internet revolution will continue to spew bullshit like this. Those who will loose their ability to charge per minute for telcom will flame. Those who will loose their dead tree advertising empires will flame. Software companies with no real assets beside IP that has been duplicated, bettered and finally given away by the internet enabled free software community will flame. Those who would take something as common as music from the world, and attempt to monopolize it's distribution, really the sale of your own popular culture, will flame. And they are doing it. There is a steady barrage of hostile garbage comming from all those threatened industries. Attacks on sharing, free speech, even knowledge itself are becoming so common. All the storries about evil loosers who persue strange things and end up hurting themselves by being put in jail. The whole "internet bubble", where the internet is blamed for the recent collapse of so many companies that were pilfered by their executives with the aid of their accountants and sold by Wall Street, backers all of the old empires revealed as frauds are attempting to pass the blame from their wanton acts to the victims of their crimes. "Silly people, did you think stocks in our companies were really worth anything?" the seem to ask. All they will have in the end are losses. Obsolete business models will fail and those who fight against changes will have only themselves to blame for their losses.

Sensible people will apply reasonable laws to the internet and all forms of electronic communications. Laws made for snail mail will be appleid to email that will be encrypted and then protected from interception. New interests will find a way to right.laws have become unbalenced through oligrachal domination, Copyright will be rexeamined from it's first priniples bases on the greatly reduced cost of publication. The results will be much more in line with original US copyright laws than those that the RIAA would burden us with. Reasonable laws will be made, barring civil and nuclear war and everyone becoming like Microsoft.

Oh yeah, for those pea brains who would like to call me a strary eyed school girl I'm gonna pop out my accademic stick: BA Classics, BS Mechanical Engineering, working on a masters degree in Nuclear Science. I have a keen sense of history, love the good things that technology can do for people, I vote republican for lack of better alternatives, and I think the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Freedom Foundation are right on. Now piss off, you silly comercial trolls.

Duh-huh, what?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

'The steam engine ... probably transformed American law, but the "law of the steam engine" never existed.'

Er, no. Actually, the steam engine necessitated a lot of new laws. Mineral right laws were updated because previously-unminable lands became workable. The locomotive, a descendant of the steam engine, created the railraod, which launched corporations into their stratospheric rise and indeed gave birth to the entire body of law called "corporate law". There's a special law for retirees of the rail system (separate from Social Security) and indeed there are labor laws entirely devoted to the rail industry. (In fact a major complaint of airlines is that they have been saddled, by extension, with these older laws.)

So the analogy fails, because there is a "law of the steam engine". As technology evolves, the law must evolve with it. Whole new crimes spring into existence and old crimes assume an efficiency and scope unimagined before.

Should the principles be extended into the new realm? Of course. But answer me this: What best "fits" the discussion forums on, say, nytimes.com? Newspaper article? Broadcast? Editorial? Conversation in the public square? Conversation in a private home? The forum is clearly like each of these yet is none of them. And those areas each have quite different rules on what can said, what can be actionable, etc. So how can you say that this new mechanism, which "looks like" many old mechanisms at once, should follow the old rules? Which old rules?

The pontificating of the layman

[0xdeadbeef]

[Joseph H. Sommer] also fretted that the cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."

Oh, ouch, like, that hurts. These lawyers are afflicted with insufficient perspective, historicism, lack of forethought, and technophobia.

I find it remarkable that they accuse us of elitism. As if we went to "ivy league" colleges, work for Wall Street firms, and weren't doing our damnedest to maintain the status quo. This article is sheer propoganda. It isn't that they want the Internet treated like every other technology, it is that they want the Internet treated like the things the law already has a handle on, and can therefore control.

Technologies aren't the same, they have different effects on society, and Internet has, and will continue to have, and enormous impact on social organiziation, free speech, intellectual property, and general enconomics.

No one can dipsute the fact that the automobile transformed American society. So why is it so futurology to suggest the same of the Internet?

Wait, WE don't understand?

[drinkypoo]

"insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."

Insufficient perspective? That must be why computer geeks tend to be extremely aware of environmental issues, for example. Disdain for history? I have a disdain for the things that non-geeks have done in history. Geeks figured out a way to harness the atom; non-geeks dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Sound familiar? This has been going on since technology has existed, or in other words, always. I bet someone once figured out you could use a stick to beat down a gazelle, and then someone half as smart turned around and hit another person in the head with one.

As for technophilia; I call upon these arrogant asses to eschew electricity, discard their automobile, and go churn butter and raise barns. The very fact that we're seeing anything they have to say at all means that they embrace technology as long as it's for their own purposes; IE, spreading FUD.

This article was only worthy of a notice on slashdot so that it could be flamed.

That someone is you

[Groovus]

"Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France "

Thank you for highlighting my point (though it seems you didn't understand it). Similarly, France does not get to impose their laws on people in the U.S. Yet we have entities operating on the internet originating from all over the world. How do you regulate or legislate such a thing effectively and fairly? THAT is my point, and it is the point the author missed.

In a case seemingly involving two parties, as with France and Yahoo you can get away with saying something like "Prof. Goldsmith says that Yahoo, since it has a subsidiary in France, should no more be immune to French laws than General Motors is..." What if there was no subsidiary - as there often isn't. The "subsidiary" element of this example lends itself to a more simple analysis, but you don't have to do too much extrapolation to see that the reality of the situation is that applying the author's and his quoted sources manner of thinking becomes unworkable when you consider just how many parties could be involved in the case of internet based entities. But no acknowledgement of this is made anywhere in the article. Therefore the article does miss a major point in consideration of its topic "Cyberlaw: Cybersmart or cybersilly?" if the question to be answered is whether or not a different approach needs to be taken in regards to regulating and legislating the internet and the entities it supports.

When you say something like "the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law", it serves to highlight the difficulties quite well. Which law? Whose law? Zimbabwe's? Nepal's? Ecuador's? The responder's? Mine? Which nations' laws apply to the internet and all entities participating in it? All? None? Things are a little more complicated than the author, and apparently this responder would like to consider.

So in the end the responder misses the point along with the author and his sources. However I'll give the responder bonus points for attempting to use the straw man cliche - can't hear that one enough can we? I chalk it up to just another case of attempting to over simplify something that won't bear being treated that way.

Re:That someone is you

[werdna]

Straw man. Your hypothetical, however interesting, is not this case. Yahoo has property in France, and is thus subject to France's jurisdiction. If Yahoo ignores the order, France will take it out on Yahoo's french property and personnel. A company having no exposure to France might simply ignore the order, or fight it in a US court should France try to nationalize it. Then US law (and the US Constitution) would apply.

I wonder if I am banned.

[CmdrTaco (troll)]

Nope.

Re:technophiles want LESS special case internet la

[DunbarTheInept]

Okay, who's the idiot who modded my post above as "overrated" when it hadn't even ever been "rated" in the first place? It's illogical for the very first moderation on a post to say it's been "overrated".

In which way do you think they have anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Should the world be more like cyberspace...
Or
2) Should cyberspace be more like the world...

I don't like the idea of murder 1 for Packeting some guy and *Killing* his connection...

And I don't like the idea of people not getting murder 1 if they *Kill* someone's connection...

And, most people who kill people have mental disorders.
But most people that kill connections are romanian scripties.

Voila, neither works... toss the idea and stick your copyrights and your trademarks up your wazoo, open source 4 ever.

-Oogle

Re:In which way do you think they have anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh crap, 4th sentance... replace "someones connection" with "someone"

E != Snail

[The Monster]

How is this different from the issues surrounding snailmail?

First of all, I get to address an item to go to a specific person and place. It is a tangible
thing that exists in one place at a time, all along the route from when I put it in the hands
of the US Snail

from which point no jurisdiction other than Federal applies - my hypothetical
neighbor can't be charged with violating the porn laws of Missouri just because
the USPS truck takes the pictures over there to be sorted (as well as sordid)
on the way to the state it's ultimately addressed to, unlike electronic communi-
cations, which apparently are within the jurisdiction of an government that even
thinks of accessing them.

until it is delivered to that recipient. If that recipient makes a photocopy of a letter and
redistributes it, the copy isn't considered to be the same act of mailing. But a blog post
goes all over the place at once. It is everywhere and nowhere.

--
Fight 'wide' posts - use your own page <br>eaks!

cyberbuffs

[choke]

cyberbuff indeed.

I am a follower of the church of technology that believes that enlightenment and ultimately ascension will come from technology.

Mankind will someday break the bounds of this rock. We will someday find and teach, and learn from other life. We will do all these things, or our lives, all our lives will never have mattered because we will simply cease to exist with no record, trace or impact.

cyberbuff my ass.

Re: and another thing

[Amizell]

How can you use the word "namespace" in a sentence that claims that cyberspace doesn't exist? Cyberspace exists in the same place as namespace (which you apparently have no problem comprehending).

Re: and another thing

[davidmccabe]

A "namespace" is just a known scheme for naming a collection of entities. The books on my shelf are categorized and labeled, so they are in a namespace. But that isn't cyberspace.

There are a lot of namespaces that aren't cyberspaces. A file cabinet. A class tree. A phone book (good example). A directory tree. To some extent, the English dictionary is a simple namespace. Basically anywhere that you have a lot of information stored, there is probably a namespace there for finding the information.

Re: and another thing

[Amizell]

Those are actually well thought out points. But they don't invalidate the concept of cyberspace in any way - I can make a good case for the existance of namespaces within the cyberspace of the Internet as well as outside of it.

alex

Virtual Reality primer

[Amizell]

If anyone is at all interested in VR they should check out eXistenZ. It's by David Cronenberg who did Crash and Naked Lunch so you know it's bizarre. Might not be to everyone's taste but it does a good job of showing the profound weirdness created by high-quality VR systems which are likely to be widely available in the coming years. You can already buy a cheap-o VFX1 head mounted display on eBay for a couple hundred bucks. It's not too terribly impressive yet but it'll make ya think.

alex