Slashdot Mirror


Kazaa And Exportation of U.S. Copyright Laws

Mr. Vidster writes "Interesting article in the NYTimes about the potential issues the U.S. justice system must face when dealing with Sharman Networks and KaZaA. Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands. How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"

422 comments

  1. The long arm of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    reaches all the way up my ass.

    1. Re:The long arm of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that may be troll, but I can't help but find that to be pretty funny.

  2. As far as it wants to. by drhairston · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jon Johansen can answer that question for you, and he is only a teengager.

    --
    Dr. Joseph Hairston
    Superintendent, CCBC
    1. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jon Johansen can answer that question for you, and he is only a teengager.
      I presume you meant teenganger when you misspelled that. The USA will not stand for these Russian mobsters trying to destroy our way of life. One day you let a teenganger go free and the next day he gets recruited into a terrorist organization. Sorry, but certain things must be done to preserve the American way of life on Earth. If one of those things is to kill this renegade teenganger Johansen then so be it. Down with teengangers!

    2. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Copyright law extends as far as the US has influence in the world.

    3. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope that is sarcasm ;)

    4. Re:As far as it wants to. by halftrack · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are better examples, Jon Johansen is being prosecuted according to norwegian law. Certain US criminal cases come to mind (like Skylarov.) And some people's (IIRC just like Alan Cox') fear of traveling to the US.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    5. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was sarcasm. :-) I think the whole DMCA law is a pile or horse turds. :-)

    6. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US may indeed have a lot of implied power but don't mistake that for the ability to indoctrinate other countries with US law. They enjoy their freedom to have their own laws just as we do here in the US.

      File sharing is not going anywhere folks.. Not with programs out there like Direct Connect, FileShare, Kazaa and need I mention the millions of ftp sites out there?

      These arguments are SO old. I download movies and games.... if they are worth keeping, I buy them and if they are garbage I delete them and never bother again. If not for this process I would not bother to buy anything(as I have done for years because frankly I dont like blowing money on a game and or movie and then hating it).

      What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.

      Just a thought. :-)

    7. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Being a Norwegian, I must say that I suspect the Johansen prosecution is all about appeasing the USA. We are allied with the USA, and the USA is an important trade partner as well as defence partner.

      If we did not attempt to prosecute Jon Johansen, it would look like we did not care about the views of the USA. Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law. Most domestic IT law experts expects Johansen to win. It will be trying for the poor kid, but he will go loose and the USA will be moderately satisfied we at least tried.

      That being said, I believe the WTO agreements are the papers to look for when researching the scope of Intellectual Property law.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    8. Re:As far as it wants to. by zapfie · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope you meant "hpoe yuo ment".

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    9. Re:As far as it wants to. by ACNeal · · Score: 1

      Was that the long arm of American law, or the deep pockets of the movie studios?

      I think it was NL copyright law, judiciously enforced after the appropriate application of incentives from the film companies. Wasn't he charged where he lived?

      What are copyright treaties, and what sorts of provisions do they make generally?

    10. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie companies that want him dead aren't in the USA anymore. I know it is easy to apply the Big Money = USA filter, but in the entertainment industry, the money all goes outside the US, except that which goes to the actors.

      I think, and I might be wrong, but of all the big studios, Disney is the only one still American owned.

    11. Re:As far as it wants to. by dirvish · · Score: 1

      not to mention Dmitry

    12. Re:As far as it wants to. by WizardX · · Score: 3, Interesting
    13. Re:As far as it wants to. by thomas.galvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.

      I wonder if they compared their situation to other times providers of non-esentiall goods were guilty of price fixing.

    14. Re:As far as it wants to. by uradu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > not to mention Dmitry

      Well, he got nabbed when he set foot on US soil. That's different from US law reaching overseas. I don't know if Russia would have extradited him.

    15. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 5, Informative
      Jursidiction is really not that complicated here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of doing business in America, then you are subject to the laws of America. Everybody likes to pretend these are novel issues, but American courts don't find them to be that difficult.

      What follows is a repost of my two-secondprimer on personal jurisdiction on the internet:

      American civil procedure provides for jurisdiction over foreign companies that do business in America. The theory is that if you come to America and avail yourself of our markets, resources, society, labor, and laws, you are bound to obey our laws. This does not mean that you can be sued in New York if you offer goods for sale in China and some American happens to buy them while on vacation in Beijing. It does mean, though, that if you knowingly advertise in America, ship goods to America, or provide services to American clients, you can be sued in America for violating American law.

      On the Internet, this analysis is a little complicated because websites are accessed internationally, and it is difficult to detect what country people are really browsing from. Still, efforts can be made to exclude certain jurisdictions. For example, Lindows.com [lindows.com] used to have a message [google.com] on their website that refusing to do business in Washington state. This is because they were trying to avoid being dragged into court by MSFT in Washington state.

      There is plenty of caselaw on this emerging area of law:

      • A Blue Note jazz club in Missouri was sued by the Blue Note jazz club in New York. A NY court held that the Missouri club's website, though viewable from NY, did not create jurisdiction in NY because the club was a strictly local Missouri operation. (Bensuan Rest. Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25)
      • Likewise, Cybersell of Arizona sued Cybersell of Florida for trademark infringement and was denied jurisdiction because Cybersell of Florida was not really offering its services to Arizonans. (Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414)
      • OTOH, Zippo (the company that makes lighters) sued Zippo.com (a company that provided fast news updates) in Pennsylvania. Since Zippo offered its news service to netizens across the land, including PA, they were adjuged to be doing business in PA and thus were amenable to suit.

      As the cases make clear, there is a sliding scale that stretches from (1) passive website relating to local activities to (2) interactive website offering services to anybody across the land. Elcomsoft sounds a lot more like Zippo than it does the Blue Note jazz club in Missouri. If they are offering their services to Americans and offering downloads to Americans, they have to expect that they might be sued by Americans in America.

    16. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    17. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Germans tried, but your Chuck Norris-loving prez didn't quite enjoy that.

      That being said, war on terrorism is widely seen as internationally divisive from a non-US perspective. We feel that the war has not been carried out according to intentions.

      Still, world against the US of A would be in interesting spectacle. You would be severely limited in your options by your access to oil on a medium-term basis.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    18. Re:As far as it wants to. by dogfart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you avail yourself of the benefits of doing business in America, then you are subject to the laws of America.

      Given the amount of oil the US imports from Saudi Arabia, it sounds like a good argument could be made for enforcing Saudi laws in the USA. We should expect US citizens to now face lengthy jail terms for possessing copies of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition, for possessing and consuming fermented beverages, etc. And don't forget the public executions for things like adultery.

      If we can tell other countries what their laws must be regarding software, then they can expect us to enforce their laws about equally important moral sanctions.

      Fair's fair, right?

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    19. Re:As far as it wants to. by DaytonCIM · · Score: 2

      Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law.
      I hope so. The US Justice Department has a funny way of changing it's mind about respecting another country's laws. One minute the Justice Dept says: go ahead, do it yourself. Next thing you know their crying that you are not doing enough, the threat to the US is now greater, and they want to take over.

      WTO agreements are definitely a good source. You may want to check out:
      1) NATO agreements,
      2) INTERPOL agreements and procedures, and
      3) whatever extradition treaties the US may have with Norway.

    20. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

    21. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The story must be true. They even have a picture!

    22. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.


      You first.

    23. Re:As far as it wants to. by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      Except that if it is being IMported, then the Saudis are doing business here in the USA. However, buy your arguement, maybe we should drag the Saudis in court and enforce our anti-discrimination laws, no?

    24. Re:As far as it wants to. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the issue of jurisdiction is whether a court has power to try someone. Assuming that they both applied the same rules, our courts probably would not have a problem with foreign courts claiming jurisdiction over Americans who had been operating businesses abroad.

      Enforcing the outcome of a trial OTOH is trickier.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    25. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wholy fuck thats so funny I wanted to log in to see if I could mod it up. Then I realized it was at 5.
      P.S.GW and GWJr are tools of the white mans corrupt greed.

    26. Re:As far as it wants to. by ScaryDeath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >as well as defence partner Am i missing something? The only thing the US seem to hit with their missles is their allies :p

    27. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.

      If you vote for Democrat or Republican, you have no right to complain.

      I never vote for either party. I personally vote Libertarian. I have the right to complain when the rest of the shit-wits in the US vote for "The lesser of two evils."

      Now, when more people wake up and stop electing EVIL (lesser or not), maybe the rest of the world won't think we're all so evil.

      When I voted, I was telling both Bush AND Gore to go fuck themselves. What were YOU telling them?

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    28. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mmm yeah, except the Libertarian party is economically conservative....meaning screw you as long as I've got mine, a.k.a. what poor people?

      16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number?

      Nope, as far as the poor are concerned Libertarian and Republican are the same thing.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    29. Re:As far as it wants to. by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, we have plenty of our own oil. We're just saving it for after we've used up everybody else's. Plus, it's cheaper to buy it overseas. They don't have any of those pesky enviornmental protection and worker safety laws to drag profits down.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    30. Re:As far as it wants to. by fubarmdk · · Score: 0

      and soon US law will dominate the world and outer space

    31. Re:As far as it wants to. by Skevin · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I presume you meant teenganger when you misspelled that.

      I presume you meant äppleganger when you misspelled that. What's an äppleganger, you ask? Sometimes, parents (especially of Germanic origin) leave their children home alone in front of the PC, only to come home and find some hideously altered travesty (actually a Fey Changeling) sitting in front of a machine that is no longer recognizable as a PC: gone are the beige overtones and sharp corners, only to be replaced with unacceptably nonconformist colors and sweeping, slanting curves. Such an abomination seeks to corrupt all surrounding mortals with ominous mantras such as "Think Different!" or "Switch!". Even the desktop is oft times different (although Gnome users are not as likely the same foreboding disorientation as others). That, my friends, is an äppleganger.
      Our boy Johansen seems to fit the racial profile of the changeling victim, but his computer... I just don't know. Could it be that the Norweigan Police are in cahoots with the sinister Faerie King S'Teef Chobbs and quickly returned the computer, recoginizing it for the instrument of destruction it truly is? Perhaps we have more to fear from these äpplegangers than we truly realize.

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    32. Re:As far as it wants to. by pumpkinescobarsof2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      im a candian and i feel it's high time YOU (the american people) told YOUR OWN president to go fuck himself.

    33. Re:As far as it wants to. by swb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Libertarians are Republicans that like getting high and watching porn.

      Greens are Democrats that can't get a trade union job or don't work at all.

      Where I live there's almost always some wingnut racist biker running for president. That's who I vote for.

    34. Re:As far as it wants to. by tuxlove · · Score: 3, Informative

      US Copyright law extends as far as the US has influence in the world.

      This has nothing to do with US copyright law and everything to do with international copyright law. I do not defend the RIAA, but feel obliged to note that copyright law is extended *both* directions through international treaty. IANAL, but I at least understand that US copyrights are honored elsewhere, and foreign copyrights are honored in the US. At least in theory, and excluding "pirate" countries and countries without at least a modicum of stability.

      It's truly obnoxious the way the RIAA chooses to defend its copyrights. But the implication that the US is somehow overstepping its bounds by going after pirates outside its borders is ludicrous. These "foreign" countries have *agreed* to protect the copyrights of US entities, just as the US has agreed to protect theirs. It's the RIAA's heavy handed tactics that are the problem, not their belief that they have the right to protect their copyrighted works.

      What's really in question is the legal interpretation of copyrights outside the US with regard to file sharing. To that end, the US can only work within the confines of the legal systems of the countries in question. They may display an excess of testosterone when dealing with the legal systems of these countries, but in the end the say is not that of the US legal system. The DMCA does not apply because it is not recognized internationally.

    35. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, as far as the poor are concerned Libertarian and Republican are the same thing.

      There is certainly merit to that argument, and I won't deny that economically, a Libertarian president could do almost exactly the same damage a Republican will do, except there are major differences that matter to me...

      A Libertarian wouldn't take every opportunity to bomb the shit out of other countries...

      A Libertarian would oppose things like the DMCA...

      A Libertarian would work on laws that punish real evil people without trying to take away every last civil right we have left.

      If you don't like the Libertarians, don't don't have to vote for them. But if you can honestly say you LIKE this bullshit "Two Party" system we have, then I think it's safe to assume you don't mind having your rights slowly taken away.

      More important than that, if you ever vote for any one candidate you don't like just to "take votes" from someone you like even less, you're just as guilty as the person who doesn't vote at all.

      If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    36. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians support capitalism and free markets. This IMHO is good for the poor. However, Libertarians also wish for a return to more feudal forms of property ownership. Now this, IMHO, is bad for the poor. Once the rich have gobbled up all of the capital producing resources the poor have no power and effectively become slaves to the rich. Worse, modern technology is fast increasing productivity to the extant that the vast majority of people will have nothing productive to do in a matter of decades. The solution to keeping a free market from degenerating to feudalism is the concept of property stewardship rather than ownership. Property taxes already go a long way towards making this system a reality, and I'm loathe to see what will happen when the wealthy have no checks on the money (power) they are accumulating. It scares me to think what it would be like to live in a country where every business could freely get away with treating its employees like Walmart does.

    37. Re:As far as it wants to. by goldfndr · · Score: 1
      What follows is a repost of my two-secondprimer on personal jurisdiction on the internet:
      Two paragraphs and three cases studies deleted.

      Uh, that two seconds must not count the time to plug cable into brain. What time scale are you on?

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    38. Re:As far as it wants to. by hyphz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Jursidiction is really not that complicated
      > here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of
      > doing business in America, then you are subject
      > to the laws of America.

      But this isn't quite the case. If I'm running a firm in the UK (for example), then I'm subject to the taxes and business laws of the UK. If I get orders from the US, it's harder - not easier - for me to ship them. Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?

      Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US? Ah yes, of course, they're the biggest Internet users so I must have an interest in them if I use the net. (Never mind that there are still more non-Americans using the Net than Americans - they just aren't all in the same country.)

      Hey, how about some ISPs set up a ".nonus" domain which has no routers or hosts in the states?

      The other problem is it's an aberration from standard law. In every other country, and for every other type of illegal material, there's a simple argument: if you import a product from a country where it's legal, but it's illegal in YOUR country, then customs swipe it and kick YOUR ass. That's reasonably fair.

      The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.

      If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?

    39. Re:As far as it wants to. by sjlutz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would, except I'd probably be arrested. I'd tell the rest of the American's that keep voting for our idiot leaders to go fuck themselves, but I'd probably be arrested too. So I'll continue to vote for the person that everyone wants to win, but no-one votes for because he/she won't win.

    40. Re:As far as it wants to. by smallfeet · · Score: 1

      Gee, I thought Canada was just america north.

    41. Re:As far as it wants to. by blibbleblobble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay. Fair enough. So your website then, the one generating money from adverts. Availing yourself of the french market? Enjoying coming to France and doing business in france? Right. You've lost your freedom to hold nazi views.

      Enjoying coming to Germany and availing yourself of the German market? Excellent. You've lost your right to compare your product with others in adverts.

      Website accessible from Zimbabwe? Sorry, lost your right to critisize the government there. Ditto in Burma and America.

      Availing yourself of the japanese market by benefitting from showing them adverts? Congratulations, you can display child-porn there. Unfortunately, you're still doing business in America, France, Germany, Burma, and Zimbabwe, each of which prohibits it. Moreover, you're doing business in Saudi Arabia, where the penalty is beheading. As you yourself say, policemen in your own country have an obligation to enforce the laws of the country where you do business.

      Any more? If your banner-ad statistics show that you get paid for chineese web-browsers accessing the adverts, you'd better take the christian literature off the site. And of course, any criticism of the chineese government.

      Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.

      Welcome to the free market. Aren't American legal ideas great?

    42. Re:As far as it wants to. by abe+ferlman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, we tried, but his brother runs Florida. What's Canada's excuse? :)

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    43. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, voting libertarian, or green, or any other 3rd party and saying "look at me i'm going against the system!" is completely ignoring reality and the practical nature of our dumb voting system.

      With the current system, voting libertarian is equivalent to voting democrat, since you (generally) take votes away from republican.. and voting green is equivalent to voting republican, due to the opposite effect.

      What we need to do as a nation is push to implement alternative voting systems that don't break down if there's more than 2 major candidates. I prefer Approval Voting, but Instant Runoff Voting is better than what we have and seems to be the most popular up-and-coming choice.

      Once we do so, then we can start actually voting from our hearts, rather than strategically, and suddenly you'll see a huge political turnover as 3rd parties get more and more support.

    44. Re:As far as it wants to. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    45. Re:As far as it wants to. by dogfart · · Score: 1
      ... You would be severely limited in your options by your access to oil on a medium-term basis.

      Wasn't that what ultimately did in the Third Reich? Didn't some high ranking Nazi figure out early in WWII that the Germans simply did not have the access to petroleum they required, and therefore simply could not win the war?

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    46. Re:As far as it wants to. by dogfart · · Score: 1
      I have no doubt that if Saudi Arabia were the pre-eminent power in the world, with a military bigger than all other countries combined, then we would all be expected to follow Sharia if we wanted their oil, and would face "regime change" otherwise.

      Laws tend to codify power, not justice

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    47. Re:As far as it wants to. by aebrain · · Score: 2

      Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.
      Firewalled are we? I didn't know that. To prove it, please give a small list of, say, 10 - or even ONE - site that can't be accessed from Oz. Excluding those that involve goats, minors etc.

      You see we may have legislation in effect that says "block all the kiddie porn" but in fact no-one here's come up with a way to do this effectively. Either you don't block what you want to, block what you don't want to, or (usually) both. So no blocks are actually in place that I've been able to find. Of course, I wouldn't know what I can't see, would I? So tell me. Thanks.

      Otherwise I'll consign this to the realms of "Urban Myth".

      --
      Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
    48. Re:As far as it wants to. by parliboy · · Score: 0, Troll
      Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?

      If you sell the product to people in the US, then yes. Without knowing UK law, if you're in one part of the UK, and you ship a product to another part of the UK, is a dissatisfied consumer able to sue in their own jurisdiction, or do they go to yours? Anyway, if you don't want to sell to the US, don't sell to the US.

      Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US?

      Only if your Internet website fulfills orders from the US. Otherwise, blow us off.

      The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.

      If the manufacturers are the ones directly responsible for shipping the guns, then heck yeah, fry them. They're trying to do business in a jurisdiction where their product is as illegal as crack cocaine. I've got no problem with the good ol' fashioned corporate death penalty here.

      If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?

      Because they make no effort to limit jurisdiction. They don't even say, "Hey guys, if you're in the US, promise not to get this!" They fail to specify what jurisdictions their products is intended for, and they make it available in every country in the world. Therefore, they have to be prepared to deal with all of those countries' laws. Not just US, but all of them.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    49. Re:As far as it wants to. by parliboy · · Score: 2
      Firewalled are we? I didn't know that. To prove it, please give a small list of, say, 10 - or even ONE - site that can't be accessed from Oz. Excluding those that involve goats, minors etc.

      We'd love to, but your government won't tell which sites they blocked.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    50. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would except I don't want to disappear in some squealing black van, never to be seen again.

    51. Re:As far as it wants to. by F34RL3SS+L34D3R · · Score: 0

      What if you're a Democrat who likes getting high and watching porn?? and can get a trade union job but works elsewhere? and votes for any unknown on the ballet?

      Blame Canada!

    52. Re:As far as it wants to. by M@T · · Score: 2

      Nice spiel...

      Do yourself a favour and replace every mention of America and Americans with France and French, or any other country for that matter. Then see if your comments sound nice and even handed.

      eg.

      . If they are offering their services to Americans and offering downloads to Americans, they have to expect that they might be sued by Americans in America.

      becomes...

      "If they are offering their services to the people of France and offering downloads to the people of France, they have to expect that they might be sued by the French in France."

      Case in point: Yahoo

      --
      'sapientia potestas est'
    53. Re:As far as it wants to. by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      Bottom of Electronic Frontiers Australia (can't find more recent links, but then australia's internet blocking was never my specialist subject.)

    54. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That thing is so slanted that it's not even funny.

    55. Re:As far as it wants to. by aebrain · · Score: 2

      The EFA site lists a number of sites blocked by one particular tool, iFilter that was supposedly going to be installed in some schools (as of 1999). One "recommended" by one particular Senator in 1999. A simple keyword searcher, and not a particularly good one. That's it.

      FWIW I had no problem getting to 3 of the 4 sites listed, and the other one isn't being reported as existing by Google.

      But thanks for the attempt... looks like Australia's Internet Blocking isn't anyone's specialist subject. You made as good an attempt at helping me as I could ask for, and my sincere thanks for that. But you're in a minority, it appears that most people don't want to be confused by the facts.

      --
      Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
    56. Re:As far as it wants to. by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      Darth.., I mean Ralph Nader of Course!

      --
      | - | - |
    57. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. They tried using Jews as fuel for a while, but that didn't really work out too well.

    58. Re:As far as it wants to. by alexburke · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

    59. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=3, Insightful=4, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=3, Total=13

      Bwhahaaha

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    60. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eeeh what?
      Kids, does your parents know that you are moderating on slashdot?

    61. Re:As far as it wants to. by ogre2112 · · Score: 1

      The president had nothing to do with it. I doubt if he even knew of it.

      Not to mention it was a different president at the time.

    62. Re:As far as it wants to. by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

      I'm getting too old for this site. How on earth can a comment like that me so high rated? But it happens all the time. At one time, I felt like I learned something when I read the comments or got a different perspective on things. These days it just sucks so much.
      But then as I said, I might be getting too old for this shit.

      --
      my sig
    63. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want to be rude, eh?

    64. Re:As far as it wants to. by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      I feel your pain. Oh wait, that was the last guy.

    65. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as people want to bitch about this being an example of America running roughshod over other countries' laws they should know that virtually all countries follow this same theory. If you do business in a country then you are bound by that country's laws. If GM opens stores in France then they are subject to French laws. There is nothing cosmic or unfair about this concept - its a basic tenent of international law. The gray area here is the fact that the company doesn't have a significant presence in the US. Does making a program available on the internet constitute a "significant presence"? Only the court knows.

    66. Re:As far as it wants to. by Saib0t · · Score: 2
      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you find a stick.
      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    67. Re:As far as it wants to. by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      The age of consent in Japan is 16. I'd say 16 year-olds are still children, but to say in Japan its okay to show child-porn is misleading. Calling it child-porn gets the public thinking about 8 year-old children being victimized. The 16 year-olds are doing so of their own volition, as much as any porn star actually wants to do that for a living. Granted the 16 year-old could be coming to porn from the disgusting pressures and coersion that leads many into prostitution.

    68. Re:As far as it wants to. by purplemonkeydan · · Score: 2

      You see we may have legislation in effect that says "block all the kiddie porn"

      We don't even have that. All the law states is that Australian ISP's can't host X rated content at all, and R rated content must have some sort of access control preventing minors from accessing it.

      They were thinking about attempting to block all X rated content regardless of origin, but luckily someone got half a clue and decided not to bother.

    69. Re:As far as it wants to. by TheCaptain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your not alone. I was thinking pretty much the same thing.

      I don't read here nearly as much these days...the site is full of paranoid rantings and the political commentary of people who are very deeply indoctrinated in their views. The editors are pretty bad about it sometimes too.

      Alot of folks here are truely "open minded" to those who agree with them. That's about it.

      Don't much care whether I get modded up or down. Look at the garbage that gets modded as it is. I don't know if up or down is better anymore.

    70. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India and Union Carbide and Bohpal.

    71. Re:As far as it wants to. by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      And how exactly does that refer to criminal procedures? Jurisdiction is extremely complicated when it comes to criminal procedures. To be absolutely honest, it is also horrendously complicated in civil procedures as well.

    72. Re:As far as it wants to. by Isle · · Score: 1

      Didn't some high ranking Nazi figure out early in WWII that the Germans simply did not have the access to petroleum they required, and therefore simply could not win the war?

      They all did, thats why they did something as silly as attacking Russia and starting a two-front war. They simply needed the russian oil.

    73. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down is definitely better.

    74. Re:As far as it wants to. by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2
      American civil procedure provides for jurisdiction over foreign companies that do business in America. The theory is that if you come to America and avail yourself of our markets, resources, society, labor, and laws, you are bound to obey our laws. This does not mean that you can be sued in New York if you offer goods for sale in China and some American happens to buy them while on vacation in Beijing. It does mean, though, that if you knowingly advertise in America, ship goods to America, or provide services to American clients, you can be sued in America for violating American law.

      I see. So American courts can decide what companies based in France can do on the Internet, but French courts can't decide what American companies can do on the Internet?

      Must be great to be emporers of all the world.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    75. Re:As far as it wants to. by thales · · Score: 2
      "16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number? "


      Liberals will "elevate" the number by changing the "poverity line" when it suits thier political needs, so why worry about it?


      Thanks to liberal number games, the United States has 300 pound "poor people" who own cars, TVs, and steereos, while poor people in Asia and Africa die of starvation in the streets.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    76. Re:As far as it wants to. by KaptajnKold · · Score: 1

      If the manufacturers are the ones directly responsible for shipping the guns, then heck yeah, fry them. They're trying to do business in a jurisdiction where their product is as illegal as crack cocaine. I've got no problem with the good ol' fashioned corporate death penalty here.

      The only trouble is that it doesn't work that way. It is for examble illegal for anyone living in the EU to import drugs like steroids or viagra from the US. These are commonly advertised on the Internet. But since these drugs are legal (some of them at least - I think) in the US, european courts can't procecute the responsible companies (unless the drugs were shiped from inside of the EU, in which case they could shut that part of the operation down). Now, if the reverse was true, the US could and would try to procecute the companies under US jurisdiction.This will only matter though if the companies in question have any kinds of financial values tied in the US because these are the values they stand to loose if the refuse to recognize US jurisdiction.

    77. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.

      Which European leader, other than Mr Blair, has not told GW Bush where he can stick it recently?

    78. Re:As far as it wants to. by greenrd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.

      That's pretty naive. Do you trust politicians to tell the truth about the policies they will implement or support? Just because someone calls themselves "Libertarian", doesn't mean they really are.

    79. Re:As far as it wants to. by greenrd · · Score: 2
      the site is full of paranoid rantings

      Welcome to the Internet.

      People who sound like they are smoking crack have a tendency to post more and rant more than others, therefore they give a false impression of the spread of views in the Slashdot community.

      Also, by their very nature they stand out more in your mind than "average, OK" comments.

    80. Re:As far as it wants to. by elveu · · Score: 1

      and beceause everything on the internet is true, or they wouldn't be allowed to put it there would they.

    81. Re:As far as it wants to. by torpor · · Score: 2

      16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number?



      Well, duh!! Of *COURSE* you vote Libertarian given these circumstances. After all, the losers you've voted in so far have done *NOTHING* to stem this figure, in spite of multi-billion dollar investments by both Democrats and Republicans of taxpayer money in aborted social programs which actually *promote* illiteracy and unemployment, not fix 'em.

      Damn, it's so simple. The Libertarians have had *NOTHING* to do with the existing situation, which was created by the Dems/Reps.

      So, vote 'em in. Lets see if they can clean up the mess...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    82. Re:As far as it wants to. by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Consider that the economy takes about 3 years to catch up with the administration, and figure out who was in office in 1999. Poverty climbs primarily during Democrat admins.

      Here is my pocket definition of the two major parties:

      Democrats "solve problems" by throwing someone else's money at 'em, typically by raising taxes (especially taxes that particularly impact the poor, like sales tax) and giving the money to people who don't work (regardless of whether they can't work, or just don't want to).

      Republicans say "Go fix your own damned problems." But at least they don't steal from the poor to *create more poor* via a self-perpetuating welfare state.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    83. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Jon Johansen is being prosecuted according to norwegian law, but the case seems to be one of the police listening to US copyright interests "because these are big business and cannot be wrong".

      His actions are specifically legal according to the norwegian equivalent of copyright - specifically paragraph 39i of "Aandsverksloven", which permits reverse engineering for compatibility, and dissemination as far as is necessary for this. For open source software, that would be globally and freely.

      This opinion of the interpretation of the law is shared by Jon Bing, who is considered Norway's foremost authority on IP law. You can find a deposition (in english) about this here.

      Eivind.

    84. Re:As far as it wants to. by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      People who sound like they are smoking crack have a tendency to post more and rant more than others, therefore they give a false impression of the spread of views in the Slashdot community.

      I think you are right about that...although even with knowing that, it still irks me at times. Eh...maybe it's just me. YMMV.

    85. Re:As far as it wants to. by RogerWilco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually most of the world's oil (like 50%) is in Saudi-Arabia, that's why it still get's away with being a despotic monarcy. Because everyone, the USA foremost wants to be friends with the saudi royal family.
      This in turn creates many unhappy saudi have-not's, ready to do terrible deeds to fight those who keep the saudi royal family in power. I mean the 9-11 terrorists here.

      The USA only has some sizable reserves in alaska, most other oil fields have almost been sucked dry, like texas. A clear sign when a field is almost exhausted is that these "nodding machines"
      (I don't know the english name) to get out oil, these is no pressure in the field anymore.
      This is the case in al great american oil fields,
      because they were developed a long time ago.

      totals for the USA and others on
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html
      or google some

      have fun!

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    86. Re:As far as it wants to. by geekee · · Score: 1

      told you so.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    87. Re:As far as it wants to. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2

      Mmm yeah, except the Libertarian party is economically conservative....meaning screw you as long as I've got mine, a.k.a. what poor people?

      No, libertarian philosophy only says that it's not the government's job to "help" the poor. Rather, it is up to us to personally help those that need it. The main reason why people don't help one another directly now is that the government has taken it over; subsequently, when someone sees poverty, their first thought is "why isn't the government doing something about that? I pay enough in taxes that there should be NO poverty." If the government wasn't in the charity business, people would be more inclined to help, particularly if they weren't pissing away 50% of their income to taxation.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    88. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.

      I think they are. They're all voting, in one way or another, for someone to help them use the force of law to redistribute somebody else's money/property into their pockets.

      "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler

    89. Re:As far as it wants to. by MarcOiL · · Score: 1

      When I voted, I was telling both Bush AND Gore to go fuck themselves. What were YOU telling them?

      I couldn't tell them anything! That's the point of the article. More and more people in the world are put under the USA jurisdiction without the benefit of vote. It's like "taxation witout representation", only in this case is more like "legislation without representation" because the rest of the world have to comply with USA's laws but have no say in them.

      Of course I'm just bitching a little, because if I was an Iraqui I would be more worried about the "destruction without representation" that seems to be coming ahead.

      --
      If I have posted far, it is because I replied to giants.
    90. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 2
      Like I said, it's simple. If you choose to sell to Americans, you're subject to suit in America surrounding for matters arising from that sale. You make it sound like when Americans choose to order your product, you have no choice but to ship to them.

      If you have a UK website that caters to everyody on the planet, including Americans, you are subject to suit in America for your torts arising from that site. If, though, you have a site that is directed exclusively at local UK customers, you would not be subject to suit in America.

      As for Kazaa, the issues is not whether or not Kazaa software is contraband. It's not an import/export question. The issue is whether Kazaa, by its actions, is commiting vicarious or contributory copyright infringement. Customs has nothing to do with this question.

      Under US law, what Kazaa is doing is analagous to shooting a bullet over the border. The issue is not whether the bullet is illegal to import. The issue is that the bullet injures people in America. Kazaa can't hide behind the border, and Americans can go after them for what they're doing in America.

    91. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 2
      Criminal jursidiction is different. In America, it is basically, however we can grab you. If they can wrestle you to the ground and drag you to America, the American legal system has jurisdiction. Case in point: Manuel Noriega. George Bush (the elder), sent a team to Panama to drive Noriega out of his bunker with bad music. They succeeded and Noriega was brought back to the US. He was tried and convicted of drug trafficking charges.

      As a practical matter, America generally respects borders and doesn't just charge in and arrest people. For example, we Marc Rich was hanging out in Switzerland, but we never arrested him. The reason for this is that other regimes get seriously ticked off when other countries perform military or police actions within their borders. So America only does it when they have permission from the country (which almost never happens-- if the host country is amenable, extradition is the way to go) or when we're going after the rulers of the country (i.e. Panama and Afghanistan).

  3. As far as... by mbogosian · · Score: 2

    How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?

    As far as the money will take it.

    1. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the countries in the world will accept our food and our military power, but none will be bought to change their laws. We can feed and protect a country till the end of time, but once we're paying them to punish their people to our wishes, we own them, and not a country on earth would allow that.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:As far as... by perljon · · Score: 1

      This is a joke right?

      The US pays many countries to punish their own people. Although I agree with the American government on this one, they paid the Pakistan Government to support troups in Afghanistan even though the population was against it. In fact, some of the people gone after in Afghanistan were Pakistanis.

      The has used money and food to control the entire world from Israel to Taiwan. (example, Israel's restraint during the Gulf War despite public outcry to respond to Scud missile bombings.) United States Manipulation through Money and Food far outweighs its manipulation via threat of Military Fource.

      --
      This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
    3. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      That's a different story altogether. It's easier to do with a massive operation like that, but when we single someone out from that country for punishment, it's a lot more present. Us paying a country to send in some troops is much easier to hide and ignore than us flying a single person into our country in chains.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    4. Re:As far as... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      As if Israel gives a shit what we think these days. "Keep the 6 billion in support coming every year, good ol' US of A, and we'll keep using 75% of that to buy weapons from you guys, per our agreement". By the way, Egypt gets the same deal, albeit a little smaller amount than 6 billion. Ahh...US peace accords. The free ride that fills your pockets with gold and your bases with nice jets.

      Who would argue with a deal like that? 25% of 6 billion is still 1.5 billion to spend on whatever. I think I'll move to Israel and get a $500 dollar check just for being a citizen.. oh wait, the Jewish law is too strict, I can't ever snag that.

    5. Re:As far as... by perljon · · Score: 1

      Explain then why Israel refrained from attacking Iraq? It must be the deep loving sentiment Israel has for Iraq and it's people. I'm surprised Israel didn't send Iraq a Statue of liberty or build a pyramid for 'em.

      BTW, Egypt example is poor as they are always the first to decent from the rest of the Middle East and side with the United States on issues.

      --
      This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
    6. Re:As far as... by guillebot · · Score: 0

      You must be blind. I will be glad if you accept my invitation to Argentina and see if your goverment can or can not buy laws here.

    7. Re:As far as... by shine-shine · · Score: 1

      I have no idea as to where you get your information from, but as an Israeli citizen let me clerify that you're much better off elsewhere, as would I rather be.

      Consider what it's like to be living in a western country, which Israel by all definitions is, having to tolerate the constant possibility the bus you're riding will go up in flames, or the coffee-shop you frequently visit, or just the line at the movies.

      Also, you might want to note that Israel doesn't budge without US consent, whether it is official or not; which is to say that every time Israel does something which seem to contradict US views, it's very well coordinated.

    8. Re:As far as... by ed1park · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does this get rated as 5?

      Does anyone really believe that the US or US corporations have no legislative influence on other countries?

      This is pathetic. Search through slashdot and you'll easily find dozens of articles showing otherwise. Human rights violations from oil companies, diamond industry, cobalt/mineral industry, etc. Don't forget all the countries we've invaded, NAFTA, MFN status etc. And then there's the more subtle influence our country has... CIA supporting anti russian activities in Afghanistan during the cold war, ensuring US friendly Saudi royalty support for oil even though they run despotic governments with countless human rights violations. tip o the ice berg.

      you guys make me sick with your ignorance. blah.

    9. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your base belong to us. Overheard in the US Forign Affairs office.

    10. Re:As far as... by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      That's why they're flown into guantanamo bay, Cuba.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    11. Re:As far as... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      Oh that explains why Ariel Sharon, ex-terrorist, feels free to assault the Palestianian HQ of Arafat twice a year and hold him hostage. And that's why during this whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict, there have been around 180 Israeli deaths but over 1600 Palestinians killed. And that's why it's ok to target Palestianian bomb makers when an elementary school is letting out just down the street. BTW the bomb maker escaped with minor injuries.

      Want proof? I did some research for you.

      Sharon's no angel at http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html and http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/402/402_08_S haronIsTerrorist.shtml

      We fill Israel's pockets at
      http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm and
      http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0152/solom on.ph p and
      http://www.peacenowar.net/Palestine/News/US aids.htm plus there are hundreds more. I could do a paper on this whole thing since there's so much information available.

    12. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was that Stalin quote?
      "Kill one person and it is tragedy, kill 1 million people and it is a statistic."

    13. Re:As far as... by shine-shine · · Score: 1

      We're far from total dissagreemet. It is in my personal opinion that Sharon should've been sentenced to a life in prison for his war crimes, but that's not my call.

      If you do some digging on Arafat, you'll discover that the leaders of most neighbouring Arab countries would gladly see him replaced with someone more inclined to solve the dispute, which is hardly as complex as it portrayed anyway.

      Concerning the amount of deaths, you can't blindly rely on most publications. Unfortunately, the value for life is lost in numbers, so those are far from accurate. There is no doubt that the number of Palestinian casualties is larger that on the Israeli side, but the difference is much smaller than you assume. That doesn't change the fact, and I cannot stress this enough--fact, that Israel doesn't attack unless provoked by a terrorist attack. Also note that when I say terrorist attack. A large-scale terrorist attack.

      I consider it awful to be firing at civilian populated centers, and will not provide excuses for such actions, but do realize that often times Palestinian fighters shoot from hospitals or schools, on purpose, to avoid being shot back. Call it what you want, I think it's just as awful.

      Israel could probably react in a much more subtle way, but can you imagine any nation reacting in a subtle way to almost-daily terrorist attacks? To remind you, it only took one to wipe half of Afghanistan.

    14. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the US of course, there money is more important then anything else. Well at least to the people who make the decisions.

    15. Re:As far as... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      Consider what it's like to be living in a western country, which Israel by all definitions is, having to tolerate the constant possibility the bus you're riding will go up in flames, or the coffee-shop you frequently visit, or just the line at the movies.

      Yes, I have been there too, only the IRA which tried to murder my family was mostly funded by irish-americans.

      By all geographic definitions Israel is in the Middle-East and always will be. Israel is of course tied to the European cultural tradition but it is futile to ignore geography when that is the entire basis of the dispute.

      The problem that underlies this dispute is that as soon as a state declares itself to be the state of people of type X then all people not of type X are at a disadvantage. I am white, Iopposed the South African Appartheid regime for people who are white. If I reject discrimination that puts me at an advantage it is very unlikely I will accept discrimination that puts me at a disadvantage (even if it would advantage my wife and son).

      Israel is using a ploy that the US is very familliar with, they used it to appropriate their own natives. First the government steals land, then the former inhabitants object, eventually becomming violent and then the violence is used as a justification for the original theft.

      Since agreeing to withdraw from the occupied terriories at Oslo Israel has instead doubled the numbe of settlers living there. Your army daily humiliates the arab population and then you come to us for sympathy.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    16. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what makes me sick is the ignorant rethoric you spew on the slashdot community. Have you ever considered actually reading the history of the conflict, or read unbiased news and not the anti-government crap that appears on slashdot? How many times do you bitch about the quality of a slashdot article, yet you cite them as reference? And it is very true what the parent poster said. Contries bitch and complain that we don't offer them enough food and aid, yet they bitch when after pouring billions of dollars into some piece of shit country, we ask for something in return. I say the US just backs out of the rest of the world, and leaves it to rot away. Leave your countries to be taken over by dictators because none of you can defend yourselves.

    17. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      You're comparing a guy running a Kazaa server to international terrorists. Quit posting under my thread you stupid fuck. Now.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    18. Re:As far as... by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      oh, what a lovely repartee :)

      I love it when, failing to see the humor and admittedly off-topic jab at an unpopular US policy, the offended one, unable to deal with a little graffiti (and what is slashdot but one giant New York-style subway car) resorts to vulgarity.

      /me breaks off a little more bread off the old baguette to feed the grey winged trolls...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    19. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      I love people that write off people that bark at them as "trolls"..must really help save those last few brain cells.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    20. Re:As far as... by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Barking? Is that what calling someone a fuck is?

      Ise must have had my analogies crossed. I thought for sure you were trying to be insulting...

      Eh, barking, whoodathunk?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    21. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > the dispute, which is hardly as complex as it portrayed anyway.


      Those directly involved rarely call it complex. How it really is is beyond my judgement though.


      > Concerning the amount of deaths, you can't blindly rely on most publications. Unfortunately, the value for life is lost in numbers, so those are far from accurate.

      > There is no doubt that the number of Palestinian casualties is larger that on the Israeli side, but the difference is much smaller than you assume.


      He surely can't rely blindly on some random publications. But neither can he rely on your statement to invalidate his numbers (without source too, true).


      > That doesn't change the fact, and I cannot stress this enough--fact, that Israel doesn't attack unless provoked by a terrorist attack.


      That's one of the problems. Everybody seems to think that murder is ok if it's provoked by a previous murder. How fucked up is that ? And it brings us directly to my last nit:


      > Israel could probably react in a much more subtle way, but can you imagine any nation reacting in a subtle way to almost-daily terrorist attacks?


      There's a difference between crazy suicide-bombers who were taught hatred all their life, and a nation. Nations may not be so hot-headed as to let themselfes be provoked to do stupid things. Well, nobody "may", but I expect that much from a democratic nation (of intelligent adults) while it's much harder to blame a kid who has grown up in a war and is told daily who the evil ones are.
      A nation simply must know better. Retaliation only ever ends conflicts if it completey wipes out the opposition. At least I believe that to be the case in situations where the opposition is already so desperate that suicide-bombings are its normal mode of operation.


      That aside, I really liked your posting.

    22. Re:As far as... by ed1park · · Score: 1

      So tell me this, why did the government enter the Gulf War and not enter in the Rwandan genocide between the Tutsi in Hutu that had more than 2 million in casualties in the 1990's?

      Was the US really there in the gulf bcos of oil or bcos of a good and evil morality stint?

      why does the US have a huge military presence in Saudi Arabia and closely support Saudi royalty while they run the country with numerous human rights violations? oil.

      Why did the US do nothing post gulf war as Saddam continued slaughtering Kurdish refugees. no homes, no food, no water. women and children suffering...

      I suggest you go read on the history of those conflicts. And maybe you'll find you know alot less than you think from the comfort of your computer.

      (try the NY Times and Newsweek, unless you feel they're biased and anti government. You'll find everything I've mentioned in those sources alone. It'll be a good start.)

      Maybe by reaching out to you, I can contribute to one less deluded and ignorant AC.

    23. Re:As far as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that explains why Ariel Sharon, ex-terrorist,

      When did he become an ex-terrorist? About the only way that could happen would be if he dropped dead.

    24. Re:As far as... by mpe · · Score: 2

      The problem that underlies this dispute is that as soon as a state declares itself to be the state of people of type X then all people not of type X are at a disadvantage. I am white, Iopposed the South African Appartheid regime for people who are white. If I reject discrimination that puts me at an advantage it is very unlikely I will accept discrimination that puts me at a disadvantage.

      Often things only get done about discrimination when people the discrimination puts at an advantage object to it. Since the people it places at a disadvantage typically lack effective political power.

    25. Re:As far as... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      that Israel doesn't attack unless provoked by a terrorist attack

      No, that's just not true. Here's a summary of the history of the conflict from the BBC. You can clearly see that Israel has been the aggressor on many occasions. The Palestinian's have every right to hate them, if the US goverment and media empires weren't so Jewish-controlled, you might get to hear the truth now and again. Do you have any idea what it is like to be a Palestinian in Palestine? Israeli checkpoints? Violent soldiers? (the sane ones leave the army as soon as their national service is finished, leaving only the zealots) Ever seen the footage of soldiers intentionally breaking someones arms? Or women forced to give birth at checkpoints because they don't have permission to get to the almost-destroyed hospital? On your media services, I doubt it...

      The US constitution grants all citizens the right to bear arms to prevent that kind of thing happening there, how happy would you be if you had to give your documents to a soldier (who is brought up to hate you), just to leave your village? And if the soldier doesn't like the look of you, the documents are kept and you lose what little rights you had.

      What I find ironic is that anyone who critises Israel's policies is called a Nazi. Hmm, let's see, the Nazi's believed that:

      • They were the master race
      • They were superiour to other races
      • They wanted to conqueor their neighbours
      • They hated all non-white people
      • They commited genocide and ethnic cleansing

      Sounds like Israel to me! The tragic thing is that the Palestinians have yet to learn that violent resistance doesn't work. If they were to hold peaceful protests and be stopped on by the tanks (a la Tianamin Square, China), then things might change. But as long as they kill civilians, they don't have a leg to stand on...and the killing will continue. The USA could at least have the decency to withdraw arms support. It's no different to selling Nazi Germany "shower technologies"...

    26. Re:As far as... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      First the government steals land, then the former inhabitants object, eventually becomming violent and then the violence is used as a justification for the original theft.

      Thank you! That has to be the best summary of the whole conflict do date that I have read. People tend to forget the reason why the Palestinians don't like the Israelis in the first place. It's not racist or anti-semetic. They had their homes taken away from them, and those who haven't fled to neighbouring countries are living under a brutal military occupation.

    27. Re:As far as... by shine-shine · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea what it is like to be a Palestinian in Palestine?

      There is no country by the name. Doesn't matter how many times it's mentioned, it simply doesn't exist.

      Ever seen the footage of soldiers intentionally breaking someones arms?

      No. What I do often see is news coverage about soldiers who are sentenced to two years in prison for abusing a Palestinian.

      On your media services, I doubt it...

      You will be surprised to find out that we pick up many Arab TV stations, some of which broadcast in Hebrew, for the Israeli population. Which is no to say our news coverage is biased (most of the people here consider the local news coverage to be biased the other way around), but to illustrate that one can clearly see the other side, if one whishes so.

      soldier (who is brought up to hate you)

      This is one of the most used arguments, you just got it the other way around. The Israeli school system promotes countless hours to teach just the opposite of what you suggest. At the same time, the Hamas "summer-camps" teach 14 year-olds how to handle a rifle.

      And if the soldier doesn't like the look of you, the documents are kept and you lose what little rights you had.

      After which you submit a complaint to any local Israeli official and have the soldier tossed in jail before any investigation even begins.

      All your Nazi comparisons might hold for the religious fanatics, which are a small (although very loud) minority in Israel. As appose to those insane individuals, the national school systems teach tolerance, above anything else.

  4. How far? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As far as those nations let them. The most obvious way to approach the legal issues involved would be to pull a China and deny access to these resources to the American public. There are a number of constitutional and capatilistic (I.E. ownership of lines and resources and how much control the government has over them) factors that would deny such a move by our government, in my opinion. So the next step (if that fails) would be to write up an acceptable set of international laws protecting copyrighted works, and lobbying the hosting nations to sign off on it.

    This will all take some time. Laws concerning information on the internet varies widely between nations, even preventing the United States from prosecuting or suing harmful virus writers in SouthEast Asia. With enough money and promises however, the United States may very well talk nations like Denmark and Thailand into more restrictive and reasonable laws concerning their cyber-space.

    1. Re:How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the next step (if that fails) would be to write up an acceptable set of international laws protecting copyrighted works, and lobbying the hosting nations to sign off on it.

      There are international laws protecting copyrighted works. It's just that laws (ie DMCA)prohibiting networks (such as Kazaa or the national postal services) that might be used for breaking copyright laws are not acceptable to citizens of most countries.

    2. Re:How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With enough money and promises however, the United States may very well talk nations like Denmark and Thailand into more restrictive and reasonable laws concerning their cyber-space.

      Yeah, thanks, it's happening in Europe right now
  5. Wait until Sadaam gets A-bomb plans off KaZaa by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and then Special Forces can go get all the Netherlandish developers as accessories to terrorism. Yeah baby, nothing like a GPS-18 being laser guided onto a tent in Netherlandia to teach some lessons.

    1. Re:Wait until Sadaam gets A-bomb plans off KaZaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he doesn't need kazza, p2p, or the internet for that. You merely have to walk into a library and spend a few minutes looking up the right things and viola.. the plans for an A bomb.

      of course, next they'll be banning books ttoo because of that.

    2. Re:Wait until Sadaam gets A-bomb plans off KaZaa by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      You merely have to walk into a library and spend a few minutes looking up the right things and viola.. the plans for an A bomb.

      Yes, and he'd have nuclear capability in months with access to the raw materials. Sound familiar?

  6. In a related story... by willr7 · · Score: 0
    In a related story, president Bush seeks UN support for "US does whatever it wants" plan, which would permit the U.S. to take any action it wishes anywhere in the world at any time.

    Bush in his 25-minute address,

    "I call upon the world's nations to support my proposal to give America unrestricted carte blanche to remove whatever leaders, plunder whatever resources, and impose whatever policies it deems necessary or expedient."

    1. Re:In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a plan to me. I like it. It is time you fithy fucking forgeiners realized we own your fucking asses. Blair and his bunch realize that. When Uncle Sam snaps his fingers and says jump, the british asks how high.

      Now just get with the program people.

    2. Re:In a related story... by willr7 · · Score: 0

      What this moron fails to realize is that my first post was SARCASM, and that Bush is a borderline looney tune.

  7. Damn, by unicron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is a sensitive problem. On one hand, as an American I really want to shake the "world's bully" image we seem to fitting into, yet on the other hand I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones. You may not be able to punish the guy running the foreign server, but you can limit access to it from within our borders, thereby removing it as an offender. That way, the government has accomplised it's goal(music/software no longer traded through that route) without having to flex nuts at the foreign government in question.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    1. Re:Damn, by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Except when you will be accused of hacking by the russians...

      Cheers...

      A nice example of the biased US Law...

    2. Re:Damn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real question is...how does a person flex their nuts? I just tried it and soiled myself :(

    3. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because of the nature of KaZaA, I believe that it's impossible to shut down foreign servers. I'm not overly familiar with how KaZaA works, but how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.

      Finally, how do you prosecute someone if you don't know where they are? Eventually (as it sounds like is somewhat the case with KaZaA) someone will write a system like this and then not release their names. Internal version information is enough to keep track of releases and by the time something has been distributed enough to know it's a pest, it's been distributed enough to become a persistant problem.

      --trb

    4. Re:Damn, by unicron · · Score: 2

      No, you did it right.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    5. Re:Damn, by Qrlx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may not be able to punish the guy running the foreign server, but you can limit access to it from within our borders, thereby removing it as an offender.

      In other words, we should implement our own version of "The Great Firewall of China." Except in America, it will "protect" the citizens from illegal IP rather than, say, Falun Gong websites.

      Who gets to decide what makes it through the "Freedom Shield" or whatever newspeak you'd like to call it? Ashcroft? He won't even dance with his wife because he thinks dancing is immoral! The Copyright Holders of IP? They won't allow anything; the firewall will scan the page for "Ford" or "Friends" or "Star Wars" and deny access, just like BESS does at my girlfriend's school. The web will become useless. Utterly fucking useless.

      Great plan, dipshit.

      Remind me: Why is the government spending my money to protect Sony's IP again? Doesn't Sony have their own lawyers?

    6. Re:Damn, by ender's_shadow · · Score: 1

      we already have the drug war (among others). now you want to start a music war? prohibition only creates black markets, nothing more . . .

    7. Re:Damn, by gorilla · · Score: 2
      On one hand, as an American I really want to shake the "world's bully" image we seem to fitting into

      Perhaps the US should try not doing the "world's bully" actions? The rest of the world is different to the US. As a whole, it likes being different. If a country decides that it wants to do X, and the US says that if it does, then the US will apply pressure on the country, then the US is oging to be seen as a bully.

    8. Re:Damn, by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Informative
      That's the entire problem with regulation attempts on the Internet. Physical location is unimportant. Except for issues that are generally considered bad by the global population, regulation is a messy issue.

      I've heard it said that almost all the knowledge of the world is available over the Internet, and most of what isn't can be purchased or ordered through the Internet. If so much is available then the regulation of them are pretty insignificant. Examples from my own viewpoint:

      • porn: Global consensus seems to be that it's bad for kids, but adults can choose. The regulation problem is finding a global age when the choice is acceptable. 21? 18? 16? 14? Regulation seems to be within a country or within friendly countries.
      • kiddie-porn: Global consensus seems to be that taking porn pictures of kids will basically ruin their life, so no real complaints when any country crosses international boundaries. Some nations object until their pockets are properly lined with cash.
      • Shipping Drugs, Alchohol & Tobacco: Global consensus seems to vary based on location and national laws. It seems that trade by major groups is acceptable (since they follow laws and are licensed, pay tarrifs, etc) but minor groups are being attacked -- mainly because of tarrifs and not other laws. Regulation seems to be either "friendly companies that pay taxes and basically don't traffic in narcotics" or criminals who bypass the few restrictions in place.
      • IP Theft: The only people who really seem to care are the people having their employee's ideas made available. The individuals who assert their IP rights seem to love the extra exposure, and don't mind being sent around the world as long as their name stays attached.
      • Music & Movies: You don't see India asserting this kind of laws, even though they produce most of the world's feature-length films. That seems to be a US-Only issue, more specific, an issue only with the mega-corps associated with RIAA and MPAA. So when these groups try to get the US to put P2P on the same moral level as kiddie-porn, there are pretty bad reactions.
      So from my view, the only people who want a hand in regulation on the Internet are the governments who are afriad of not getting taxes, and mega-corps who can't sell overpriced goods. There was an interesting piece on PBS some time ago that showed who the megacorps were -- note that these companies are the major entities in the MPAA and RIAA.

      frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    9. Re:Damn, by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      Great plan, dipshit.

      Come on now. Your post was insightful until that. Why do we need to resort to flamebait?

      I don't necessarily agree with unicron's extremist view either, but he does make some interesting points in this and some other follow-ups to other posts in this thread. Not that his comments in any way sway my opinion toward his as I am against any government intervention on my existing freedoms, however I don't think he warrants a "dipshit."

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    10. Re:Damn, by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought about editing out the bad language, but I decided not to. I was trying to express how upset I was (i.e. I entered flamebait mode) because unicron is clever. His plan very subtlely makes the case for a general, blanket form of censorship, an over-arching technological solution that has the potential to go way too far. The censorship (blocking overseas p2p servers) appears to deal with a specific issue but that first step is a very dangerous one, and it should not be taken.

    11. Re:Damn, by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      If a country decides that it wants to do X, and the US says that if it does, then the US will apply pressure on the country, then the US is oging to be seen as a bully.

      This brings up a question I have had for a while. Assuming that a country doesn't want to follow the US in whatever ideal, what does the US govenment do to pressure that country into submission?
      This is a serious question, I've never quite understood how the US can have that much power with other governments, I can think of the following, but nothing quite works out:
      1. Military power. Sure its massive, but the US wouldn't be stupid enough to start a war with the whole world.
      2. Financial. I know the US hands out monetary support to a number of nations, and could threaten to suspend that aid, but I can't belive that there are many, if any, EU nations that receive support of this kind.
      I just don't see how its done. While I will admit that the US can influence the nations it is sending aid to, by threating to suspend that aid, I can't see this as the only way it gets done. Moreover, I somewhat understand the US not wanting to send money to nations that are not friendly to the US. Though with the budget shortfalls and problems the US has, I question whether or not we should be looking to fix the worlds problems, before getting out our country in order.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    12. Re:Damn, by WetCat · · Score: 1

      Anonymous, freenet-based, software distribution and version control system, anyone?

    13. Re:Damn, by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This brings up a question I have had for a while. Assuming that a country doesn't want to follow the US in whatever ideal, what does the US govenment do to pressure that country into submission?

      Politics, politics, politics, my friend.

      The US can lean on countries using whatever power it has (it does/will do this). Fact is, the politics of the situation are not the savage, horrible thing that people are whining about, it seems like more of a political/diplomatic reality that has always gone on, that people are recently awaking to. (I'm going to go out on a limb here) It is a realization very similar to the US's young people lashing out because they discover that the "one man, one vote" mantra is bullshit -- its really "one man, one vote...but before that comes lots of campaign financing, handshaking, and lobbying". Its nothing new -- its the way its always worked...people just weren't completely aware...

      The US will use any means at its disposal for leverage, be it foreign aid, tariffs on imports/exports, military power/placement, embargos, control of shipping channels & oil pipelines, land, as well as its powerful positions in the UN. The US is having a related (UN) problem right now with Russia and China. Russia and China have veto power in the UN Security Council, and if the politics aren't played right, they will certainly veto any UN-endorsed action against Iraq. The US was able to gain the support of Russia by negotiating the control and security of the Russian/Iraqi oil fields. Is it an insidous process? I don't think so...I think that its the way the game is played. It just happens that the US gets to play the game with a really good hand (and its not like that great hand was just given to the Americans for nothing, which is what the rest of the world seems to believe).

      Look at any US foreign policy deal in the past two centuries. You will find that there was give and take on all sides, and each country used whatever pressure it could to negotiate whatever deal that was being made.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    14. Re:Damn, by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Thank you, that helps a lot. I hadn't really considered how the UN politics work.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    15. Re:Damn, by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      I don't really any good answers to those questions (which I found interesting), just would like to add a few things about aid.

      The EU actually hands out more foreign aid (55 % of the world total) than the US. As an EUian and an advocate of foreign assistance, I have occasionally heard the argument here in Europe as well that we should get our own countries in order before sending money elsewhere. However, I think foreign aid is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, it's also in our long-term self interest to build a stable world and build new markets (benefits the economy). Also, most western countries are really not that generous -- donating a tiny 0.2 % of their GDP, at most, to foreign assistance (as an aside, the US actually donates the least % of its GDP among the top 20 industrialized nations).

    16. Re:Damn, by grimani · · Score: 1

      simple.

      you outlaw encryption and call it 'munitions'.

      then you install stuff at the isp's to analyze emai^H^H^H^H everything transmitted.

      then you send some require ip usage records available to your goons on whims.

      then same goons drop by when no one's around, and search your internet browser cache for questionable images of minors.

      since possession = guilt, catch you on red handed. force a plea bargain.

      of course, they could always slap on a pair of handcuffs and a 'material witness' label, and throw you in jail indefinitely as well.

      see a pattern here?

    17. Re:Damn, by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2

      "I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones."

      The problem is that they're part of the internet infrastructure, and they're involved in distributing protected speech.

      Your analogy would be bombing Interstate-90 to prevent people from speeding on it. Speeding is illegal, and pretty much everyone on that road is speeding. So it would make sense to destroy the road, and you stop all of those crimes. The number of non-infringing uses (people driving at the speed limit) is negligible, just as with KaZaA.

      Doesn't seem so smart when you translate it to the real world?

    18. Re:Damn, by pjrc · · Score: 2
      ... how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.

      The fact that it "uses encryption" doesn't somehow make it magically undetectable among a stream of packets belonging to other services. The fact that it "uses random ports" doesn't negate the need to somehow, in a well defined manner, initially learn what "random" port number is being used by some host you want to communicate with.

      Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.

      If someone between you and the remote host foils your key exchange and silently drops those packets you transmitted in an attempt to learn of the remote host in the first place, it's going to put a big chill on your file sharing.

      Or, stated another way....

      You underestimate the POWER of the DARK SIDE.

    19. Re:Damn, by sjlutz · · Score: 1

      I suppose you also think that cars sold in the US should have automatic throttling devices that prevent the driver from going over the speed limit too.
      I just don't get it sometimes.
      I do file sharing. I like a song I hear on the radio, I then find more of the band's music. If I like it, I buy the CD, if I don't, I don't buy the CD, and delete the songs. With the quality of (mainstream) music these days, I think that I'm perfectly entitled to do this. And until I can take a CD back to bestbuy and say that it's crap and want my money back, I will defend my right to do that. The problem is, that you don't think it's a right because there's a law that says it's illegal. It was also illegal to attack the British King's Soldiers back in the 1700's.. if it were up to you, I guess the US would still be part of the UK.

      Anyone that says "but It's illegal" is just as stupid as the DCMA in my opinion. Something isn't wrong because it's illegal. Most American's get it backwards - something should be illegal because it is wrong.

      Reminds me of drug policy:
      Don't do drugs? Why? Because drugs are illegal. Oh. OK. This country was founded by a coke head - Yes, Washington Did Cocaine, and Jefferson farmed pot!!

      And Unicron, do you really want the government to block access to Kazaa? What happens when they say porn is bad. Or people talking about the DCMA on Slashdot is illegal (Not too far fetched since slashdot links to pages that link to circumvention devices all the time). The government is here to provide justice, not babysit us.

    20. Re:Damn, by unicron · · Score: 2

      You actually think that the removal of p2p file and music sharing software is an attempt at censorship? I really don't want to get into an argument where you attempt to prove to me your ability to download the latest Eninem album should be a federally protected right, because it's a stupid argument that occurs a dozen times on this site daily. I NEVER said I want to blanket filter the outside world from the network of America, so don't put words in my mouth. Hell, in this example I said to block the ONE server. And you somehow turned that into "Unicron wants to censor the internet rights of everyone in America!". You really need to quit karma-whoring, and in the future, if you want to get into it with me, you have to bring your game up to a whole other level.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    21. Re:Damn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're suggesting censoring the American view of the Internet? Hmmm.

      Not that it bothers me per se since you're quite right that nobody except for those evil copyright-breaking pirates would use Kazaa anyway, but do look at the precedent it would make - the US government/justice system given the freedom, even for a trivial offence such as copying an MP3, to block the use of software within the entirety of the US. That's a lot of power.

      maybe you're the trusting type?

    22. Re:Damn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use port 80/SSL. Yes, I know it's port 80 pollution, but it's one approach that's very difficult-to-stop unless you're willing to filter all web traffic. Another option is UDP DNS queries with an encrypted payload, but I actually think SSL would be more bulletproof.

      What's the Dark Side's response to that?

    23. Re:Damn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point is that in oder to block access to that one server groundwork would have to be laid (both physically and in the mind of the public) for something with great potential for abuse. It would be the first step of a system that would not stop at one kazaa server. And because of it's slow an incrimental nature, not to mention that fact that it's a "internet thing", it wouldn't raise much alarm among the general populance. Hell most of the people I know would never notice.

      Until perhaps it was to late.

    24. Re:Damn, by elandal · · Score: 2

      No, You just cut all routing between USA and the rest of the world. No IP packets flowing means no-one can access the outside-USA evil internet so full of IP violations.. Then You can prosecute anyone who has illegal (in USA) content in the USA-internet, as all packets in the net originate and terminate within USA..

      Of course if /. is hosted in the USA I'll lose that, but then again, it might benefit my employer.. :)

      I think that's how it's done in conventional physical goods case: ban import and/or export. Stop the goods at the border. So, go ahead and stop IP packets at the border, too. I think we Europeans will manage to get over it, and we'll just have to route around damage to get to the rest of the world. Slower, yes, but that'll be corrected with time.

    25. Re:Damn, by will_die · · Score: 1

      You really need to do some traveling. You can go to practiclly any large city in the world, and besides the language thier is not much difference to any large US city. You will find the same food distributors, the same food(regional specialties aside, ie you have a better chance of getting grits in Atlanta then in seattle), the same TV shows, the same music, the same clothing, etc. The only thing that tends to limit this is the wealth of the country, the poorer a country the less it is going to look like a US city, or any major city in a wealthly developed country. Also the smaller the population center the less chance of it being the same; you have a less of a chance of tunning in a english top 40 radio station 100km from Prague then being in Prague itself.

      As for the US being a bully, looking at history; it really has not been. If anything the US is an example of why the saying "Absolute power corrupts absoluty." is wrong. For the most purposes the US has absolute power over the world, however it hardly does anything about it, the example given have been of the US not senting monies to countries that don't do what they want, so what, if I don't do what my employer wants from me they are not going to pay me. All it points to is that the US has alot of power and influence so that other countries are afraid to mess with them and not get the freebies they are handing out, far from bulling someone with fear of attacking.

    26. Re:Damn, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, You just cut all routing between USA and the rest of the world

      Great - that blocks most of my spam, too.
      Then I block Korean and Chinese e-mail and
      I'm very nearly spam free - wheeee!

    27. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.

      PKI/DES encryption has been a standard for a while now. It works so well because the computing power required to break a single transmission is ridiculous, and the more computing power that's available the large the key is. 128 bit, 512 bit, it can keep going up. It's obviously not impossible to break, but the reason it's used is that in order for someone to break it, they have to spend enough time that by the time they get their answer, the data is useless.

      Exchanging encryption keys doesn't hurt you...your public key for email sits out on a public server for people to download. Web browsers do basically the same thing, only they send the public key in the first packet transmission when doing SSL. Using a method like this, I fail to see how someone is going to decrypt zillions of packets per day going back and forth between client and server.

      My note about random ports wasn't that you "blast" data into any port you want, but merely that you can set up the service to run on any port you want. A simple port scan with a hello message piped into each (under, let's say, 5000 ports) takes around 5 seconds to complete. Firewalls can't block every port (they CAN, but that would seriously cripple productivity) and they can't packet sniff encrypted packets. They can block hosts, but KaZaA, et al, run on multiple hosts.

      The current software hasn't been made capable of doing all these workarounds. Why? Because it doesn't NEED to. When the need arises, the technology is already present. Hopefully the RIAA won't make it necessary, however.

      --trb

    28. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      you outlaw encryption and call it 'munitions'

      encryption is a funny thing...how do you know something is encrypted? what's the difference between binary code and encrypted text? or encrypted music? when programs pick up that something is compressed/encrypted, it's usually because the encryption program has left behind a footprint (ie, the ZIP footprint in a zip file). When the time comes that encryption is illegal, REMOVE THE FOOTPRINT. Then you can say it's merely binary data.

      Great book to read that talks briefly about this is 'Shadow of the Hegemon', 6th book in the Ender's Game trilogy. Petra encodes a message in an image by flipping some of the bytes to spell something...Bean found it becuse he noticed a few pixels looked off. The message he found only meant something to him, just as encrypted text only means something to the one who has the cipher.

      --trb

    29. Re:Damn, by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Is it an insidous process?

      Yes, it is. Let me give an example from the last Gulf War:

      The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial... Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia... The punishment of impoverished countries that opposed the attack was severe. Sudan, in the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid. None of this was reported at the time. By now, news organisations had one objective: to secure a place close to the US command in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Amnesty International published a searing account of torture, detention and arbitrary arrest by the Saudi regime. Twenty thousand Yemenis were being deported every day and as many as 800 had been tortured and ill-treated.

      Neither the BBC nor ITN reported a word about this. "It is common knowledge in television," wrote Peter Lennon in the Guardian, "that fear of not being granted visas was the only consideration in withholding coverage of that embarrassing story."

    30. Re:Damn, by j-turkey · · Score: 2

      Woah, woah...back up there a second. That's the politics of the situation. That's how it all works. Did the US need to give foreign aid to Yemen in the first place? Does the US not reserve the right to revoke their foreign aid for any reason?

      I think that there is some feeling that since the US is in such a powerful position, the rest of the world deserves the US's assistance. This kind of thinking is just plain wrong.

      Let's put it in persoective. Hypothetically, let's suppose that for some reason, I'm supporting you financially. Now, let's say that we have a falling out and I find out that you've been talking smack about me behind my back. Am I not allowed to stop hooking you up with a check every month to support your livelyhood? If you owe some money to a loanshark and he's going to break your bones when he doesn't get money...is it my responsibilty because I stopped sending you money? Hell no! Now, how is the Yemen situation in the Gulf War any different?

      I fail to see any logic in your argument, because the US is not mandated (by any stretch of the imagination) to give foreign aid to anyone. The US reserves the right to cancel those dollars at any time, for any reason. Now that includes cessation of foreign aid for a country's UN vote against what the US feels is in its best interests. Period.

      Maybe I'm missing something -- but this seems to be a case of "life is not fair"...but insidous? I seriously doubt it.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    31. Re:Damn, by Datafage · · Score: 1

      It might be morally correct, in a sense, but it feels an awful lot like the rich kid who goes around manipulating his classmates with money, only the classmates need the money to survive, so he abuses them, knowing they can't stand up to him, and that he's stronger. I'm not expressing it quite right, but it feels like an evil, manipulative way of acting.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

  8. this far by taxman_10m · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

    1. Re:this far by count_dooku · · Score: 1

      The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

      So did I, does that mean ... Hey, what's that noise?

      --

      --
      For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
    2. Re:this far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He downloaded it with his black-market acquired playstation, too.

    3. Re:this far by matlokheed · · Score: 1

      Isn't having to sit through it punishment enough? :P

      --

      "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

    4. Re:this far by kenthorvath · · Score: 3, Funny
      The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

      Actually, it's to prevent Saddam from making a cameo appearance in Episode 3.

    5. Re:this far by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

      Actually, it's to prevent Saddam from making a cameo appearance in Episode 3.


      Two words: South Park

      Next war: hell...

  9. The long arm of American law ... by halftrack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... stops at the doorsteps of the US elite.

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:The long arm of American law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that wonderfully insightful and ontopic post. You have my gratitude.

    2. Re:The long arm of American law ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      It's not off-topic ... at least not when seen through the "important persons act", which creates a two-tier legal system in the USA.

      After all, if you're not willing to judge and punish your own people in a consistent and non-discrimitory fashion, what gives yo the right to make any sort of moral judgement on persons and/or groups in other countries, who don't owe any sort of allegience to your country, flag, or constitution?

    3. Re:The long arm of American law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you be talking about New Jersy Democrats like that!

    4. Re:The long arm of American law ... by 2short · · Score: 1

      Perhaps people would apreciate your insight more if you gave some indication what the hell you're talking about. For example a google seach on "important persons act" still leaves me clueless. Care to explain, or is this just random trolling babble?

    5. Re:The long arm of American law ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Just do a search on "Whitney Houston criminal charges" to see what I mean by a two-tier system.

    6. Re:The long arm of American law ... by 2short · · Score: 1

      $4000 in fines, drug testing, probation for a 1/2 ounce of pot. Sounds about right, if not slightly harsh. Show me a non-violent first time offender accused of a misdemeanor who was willing to plead no-contest and got it considerably worse, and you can start to argue there is a two-teir system.
      But that's not the point. I won't disagree if you say that the rich & powerful tend to come out better in the legal system. You said "In light of the 'important persons act'..." implying that this is policy; that there is an actual law to this effect. That's bull.

    7. Re:The long arm of American law ... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Perhaps people would apreciate your insight more if you gave some indication what the hell you're talking about. For example a google seach on "important persons act" still leaves me clueless.

      Maybe the difference between "corporate people" and real people...

  10. Do they have to show up? by Lothar+0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Sharman Networks oblidged to even show up to court in this country? If they refuse to even acknowledge a lawsuit or an injunction, does this mean that federal agents will be dispatched to Vanadu, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Australia? I think not.

    If they say you're infringing copyright, Sharman, just ignore them.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
  11. to the four corners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their power extends to the four corners of the globe. According to CNN, the four corners of the globe are Maine, Florida, Washigton State and California. Everything else is the untamed wilderness.

    SEriously, their power extends as far as their power is let to extend. Unless countries tell them to stay off their turf, they are going to keep extending and extending.

    1. Re:to the four corners... by Theom · · Score: 0

      Everywhere else live dragons.
      Dragons are evil.
      Bomb, bomb, bomb.

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
  12. How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? by blackbeaktux · · Score: 2, Funny

    I dunno, but I know the RIAA's tentacles reach deep into Congress' pants.

    1. Re:How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? by clonebarkins · · Score: 2, Funny
      I dunno, but I know the RIAA's tentacles reach deep into Congress' pants.

      One can only imagine what's going on there...

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    2. Re:How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for ruining my lunch.

  13. Berne Convention by An+El+Haqq · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here, read the

    Berne Convention.

    1. Re:Berne Convention by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Thanks, but this is Slashdot. We prefer uninformed soapbox ranting about how things should be rather than learning about how they are. Don't take my word for it, look at the 5 voted ramblings above your post.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  14. allways by ivanandre · · Score: 1
    Allways the same thing... why in hell USA thinks is the master of the world?

    I mean they are NOW the largest economy... but in 20-30 years... China anyone?


    Rememeber all the past powers, Roma, Bizancio, England, etc, etc.

    1. Re:allways by WetCat · · Score: 1

      NOT an economy. Military power is that matters...

    2. Re:allways by biohazard99 · · Score: 1

      Fat chance, yeah there are 1 billion people, but away from the coast it is not much more advanced than sustinence farming. As it stands they are much like the US at the start of the 20th century. Minimum of 50 years and a catostrophic loss to the US (losing a major war, china is the only player that could put up a reasonable fight at this point, maybe India if it could solidify its borders).

    3. Re:allways by forkboy · · Score: 2

      You need a solid economy to wage any kind of real war. Don't you play any RTS games? =P

      Our citizens are happier than China's anyway....if we were to get into an extended war with them, they would crack before we did. Most Chinese fear and distrust the government. (whereas only the SMART Americans do)

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    4. Re:allways by back_pages · · Score: 2
      Most Chinese fear and distrust their government? Are you speaking from an "I've been to China" point of view?

      It's a big place and I'm sure that opinions run the gamut from area to area, but when I was there, the people seemed pretty proud of their system and thought we Americans were quite the novelty. They thought it was great that the occasional tourist comes by, but they were firmly convinced that they were better off without all the evil sinfulness in the States.

      What would really break the Chinese people would be a 2 week vacation to America to see what it's really like over here. Even Hong Kong, with which many of them are familiar, gives only a slight glimpse into what the Western lifestyle is all about.

    5. Re:allways by geekoid · · Score: 2

      war with China? We would loose.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:allways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that?

    7. Re:allways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was England a past power??

    8. Re:allways by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      What does this tell you? that all Chinese are smart becuase they distrust their government?

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    9. Re:allways by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      lol. Like in Korea. Oh, wait, nm ...

      China has no capability to attack the US except via nukes. The same is certainly not true in reverse.

      Check out Marathon, Salamis, Lepanto, or even the fate of the Japanese in WW II for examples of what happens to Eastern dictatorships that attack Western powers. I'd give more examples, but really since Lepanto the Japanese have been the only Eastern power to even try. I suppose you could count Saddam in for fun, though his action was more of a bluff gone wrong than a real attack.

      I wouldn't give the Chinese 1% odds of even establishing a beachhead, let alone winning a war with the US. Thanks for the laugh though.

  15. Hahahaha by warmcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ''...And according to a lawyer for the record industry, the programmers in Estonia who once possessed a copy of the program's source code told a judge there last week that they no longer had it, but they would not say where it was.''

    Your honour, we looked down the back of the sofa. We think maybe the dog ate it.

    1. Re:Hahahaha by mttlg · · Score: 2

      Can't the judge just download a copy off Kazaa?

  16. the Dutch approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the US had a dutch approach to everything, there would be no problems. It's too bad. Ignoring evolutionary cosmic mind science is bad. We think to immediate in the US, and not cosmic like the Dutch do. hehehehehehehhehe

  17. Global Law? by CodeTRap · · Score: 1

    So, the media companies are attempting to extend US law over the rest of the world. Conspiracy people must be going crazy with this!

    Step 3 in 7 Step Plan for World Domination
    "Media Company takes over world via proxy. Landmark decision enforces microchip (InnerEar-DRM) placement in ear. Chipped people will be billed on a proactive basis for all music listened to."


    Now, all humor aside. Can they truly expect that all the other sovereign nations of the world will just fall in line? What happens when one of the other nations in the world gives the finger to the Honorable Stephen V Wilson? Troop actions on behalf of the RIAA?

    The arrogance is truly, truly astounding.

    --
    CodeTrap (www.codetrap.net)
    1. Re:Global Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      CodeTrap (I AM CANADIAN!)

      Then stop spelling like an American - it's "humour"!

    2. Re:Global Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, all humor aside. Can they truly expect that all the other sovereign nations of the world will just fall in line? What happens when one of the other nations in the world gives the finger to the Honorable Stephen V Wilson? Troop actions on behalf of the RIAA?"


      I don't see why that would be suprising. We've already had the CIA overthrow democratically elected governments just to keep Rockefeller families businesses profitable...so really i don't see why not...

      Besides Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton and Lockheed-Martin are really digging this war on terror/iraq/anybody dubya doesn't like/etc. so i don't see why the RIAA couldn't get a peice of the action.

  18. Software used to abuse copyright laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After a quick browse through the marketing of the Microsoft website(s) I have determined that nearly all software piracy and copyright abuse is carried out using a tool call 'Microsoft Windows' which is the base of nearly all other software used by nearly everyone.

    Microsoft says so.. so why aren't they being sued or something by the RIAA et al?

    1. Re:Software used to abuse copyright laws. by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      Because MS has already has media file formats with DRM acceptable to the studios, has proposed an OS with the same DRM enforcement, and appears to be driving Intel to put the needed hardware enforcement into the processors. Sen. Fritz Hollings has introduced legislation that could end up, if enacted, requiring all devices capable of displaying media (ie, putting pictures on a screen or making noise) to use such processors and software. Why would you attack the one major software vendor who is doing things your way, and is capable of delivering millions of conforming users with a simple software upgrade?

      Just today's paranoid thought...

  19. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1, Troll
    No, they attack P2P networks because the lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, Lars Ulrich) have massive amounts of cash. When politicians speak of those elusive "interests" that drive them to do the things they do, that is what they are talking: cold hard cash.

    P.S.: if you don't like the country's political climate, then try changing it yourself, take action, use your own vote and political self-worth. Stop sitting around crying about it. Otherwise, why don't you just move to China or Russia - they would love to have ya.

  20. Need you even ask? by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 1
    Lawyers are a pretty clever bunch...they'll find a way to reach them, somehow (U.S. assets, etc.).

    Like others have said though this isn't limited to the U.S., lots of countries have a long long reach, or at least try to. France, Canada, India, many others have poked and prodded around the edges, with varying degrees of success. And not just copyright issues brings 'em out: content policing and taxation are popular motives too.

  21. hmmmmm by k3v0 · · Score: 1

    hopefully the folks at kazaa will not reply to that interview request in america and come over just to get busted. i sure wish the general popluation had something big enough and rich enough to fight their side to the RIAA. maybe we can vote on our representatives to speak for us. oh wait, we tried that already

  22. the RIAA may learn... by thepoolguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The juristictional obstructions to the enforcement of the various entities involved in KaZaa, and others should provide a real sanity check for some of the more draconian copyright enforcement laws currently being enforced by the US at the behest of the RIAA.

    Some copyright laws are respected internaltionally, more or less. By this I mean that if a CD pirate is burning copies of commercial CDs and distributing them, the US will ask and work with the sovereign state in which the pirates are operating. The fact that the sovereign state cooperates with the US demonstrates that there is a mutual respect for the given rule, even though the penalties may differ from state to state.

    As the KaZaa example demonstrates, pursuing legal action against them will only work if their host states agree with the position of the US governmant. If they don't then there will be little to no assistance.

    If the RIAA looks at this, they may realize that their lobbying efforts here have not worked as well in the international arena. They may need to rethink their strategy to one which relies less on using the government as their policman and more about providing a good product to the consumers and equitable share to their artists.

    -tpg

  23. grrr by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, I'm a native US born citizen and frankly, this peaves the hell out of me. I can't imagine what it does to people in other countries. The argument seems to be that because US citizens download this software and the company gains some of its revenue from advertisements from US companies/advertising firms, it should be subjected to US law? I fail to see why, or any proof that it should be. What cracks me up is that the judge out in CA is going to determine whether or not he has jurisdiction over the case. Uh, is there a disconnect here?

    At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's .sig on /. says "The can is open, the worms are everywhere". That's precisely what's happened. You can already copy any type of digital material you want, the future hardware/software being protected won't do any good.

    ...critics have said that banning it would unnecessarily restrict speech and technological innovation...

    Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.

    --trb

    1. Re:grrr by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.

      Yes this is a problem with getting people to recognize the extent of the problem. But since source code,music,videos ARE forms of free speech comments stating such are not harming the cause of anti-DRM. Just because not everyone is informed enough to appreciate the truth, does not mean that presenting said truth hurts the cause.

    2. Re:grrr by Dryth · · Score: 1

      The argument seems to be that because US citizens download this software and the company gains some of its revenue from advertisements from US companies/advertising firms, it should be subjected to US law?

      I think part of the question being asked in this case is whether individuals are intentionally promoting international distribution to dodge the law within a given system. I mean, I agree that we shouldn't be meddling in foreign affairs, but can we support individuals who take advantage of "international waters" to promote questionably moral practices?

      This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping.

      I couldn't agree more. The idea of "free speech" has been warped to the point that the concept is diluted beyond recognition. Defending P2P filetrading as an act of free speech does less to promote the life of P2P applications and networks than degrade the image of free speech in general. Which is more important, protecting Joe Teenager's right to trade mp3s, or protecting the right of the media and common people to speak on all matters, whether endorsed by the majority or not?

    3. Re:grrr by Alsee · · Score: 2

      degrade the image of free speech in general.

      There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.

      Defending free speech means taking on exactly those cases that "degrade the image of free speech", pornography, communists, racists, politicians, religious zelots, even Nsync fans.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:grrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, it's pretty straightforward.

      The courts in the Netherlands has said that distributing Kazaa is not illegal. That's where the servers are.

      The court in LA could say it's illegal for those servers to do what they're doing. They may decide that they have jurisdiction because they are communicating with Americans. Punishable by the DMCA, whatever.

      When the folks from Sharman Networks next fly to the US, federal agents could be waiting for them. It'll be up to Holland to decide if extradition treaties apply.

      The jurisdictional problem would be the same if some folks in Holland built a bomb-mailer, and had some Danes set it up for them. The bomb-mailer then sent mail bombs to the US and killed Jack Valenti. The only difference is that those actions are much more clearly illegal. This copyright issue is more vague. It's a matter of degrees.

      We can decide if it's illegal. It involves American people on American soil. We can only pressure other countries to extradite. They might want us to extradite their criminals at some point in the future.

      Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that Sharman/the developers should get messed with. But this is how international law has always worked, and will always work. Furrinners might get upset that the US can apply more pressure than other countries. I'm curious what they might suggest we do to eliminate that problem. They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to. That would be a at least as warlike than we've ever been.

      Also, you do not make this mistake, but I'd like to bring it up: In my (limited) discussion of US foreign policy with non-US citizens, they'll frequently become angry with me, even when I agree with them. I've been treated like an ignorant cretin by people that were respecting my advice only moments earlier. This came up most often in discussions of the Vietnam War.

      I'm anti-war. My dad was a consciencious (sp?) objector, and would have served prison time rather than kill Vietnamese. It seems like in discussions like this, many people are happy to return to nationalism and assume that members of other countries are necesarily idiots. Again, these are people that both knew and liked me.

      Iduno. I'm moving to Golden Rule when they build it.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:grrr by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.

      I agree and think we should defend any speech out there, we're just talking about what speech includes. MP3 files are not speech, IMHO. They're data. They're copywritable material that can be owned. Speech can't be owned. Nobody can tell me I can't say 'Heinz Ketchup' because that phrase is trademarked, but they can keep me from naming my next ketchup substitue that. Trademarking and copyriting don't restrict free speech. They may restrict the creative process or invention, but not speech...you're still free to *say* what you want and not be jailed.

      Remember, free speech came about because there were (and still are) many places where you couldn't speak out against laws you thought were unjust. In these places, /. would have been unlawful, and Taco would be in jail. Most of the people who are posting to /. have no idea what the lack of free speech really feels like, so they keep grouping more and more things into that category.

      --trb

    6. Re:grrr by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Here's an example I've used re the extended copyright/royalties issue, tho I don't know if it actually penetrates Joe Sixpack's skull:

      Know why restaurants that assault you with noise when they learn it's your birthday NEVER do so by singing "Happy Birthday to You" ??

      Because if they did, they'd have to pay royalties on it, as a "public performance".

      Someone who can figure out where I was going with this before my brain suffered a caffeine deficit, feel free to run with it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  24. Mirror by DigiBoi · · Score: 1

    If you dont want to register with NYTimes, here is a mirror.

    --
    I put on my robe and wizard hat.
    1. Re:Mirror by jeblucas · · Score: 1

      news.google.com dodges the login as well. Try this.

      --
      blarg.
  25. How long before the first Internet-provoked war? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know, today is the day we Americans hear another "big" moronic speech about some dark-skinned guy who would one day like to build modern weapons, and about how he should die just for wanting to, along with thousands of innocent people who happen to be nearby.

    If a pretext like this is really enough to get a war off the ground, I wonder how long it will be before a US president makes speeches about how we must use force to break up cells of renegade programmers who are writing modern network protocols which result in programs that are "in confict with the interests of America." Or, maybe we will start bombing servers "suspected of sending illegal data to Freenet."

    You don't think this could happen in your lifetime? Ha!

  26. Precedent against this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Please don't squeeze Sharman."

  27. It reaches ... by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    as far as the plane carrying the S.E.A.L. or Ranger team can go .....

    Tomorrow's Headlines

    KaZaA Devlopers Disappear!!
    Rumor has it that U.S. special forces, funded by Metallica, have taken programmers to the secret base for "questioning"

    1. Re:It reaches ... by bigethespe · · Score: 1

      I have to -

      Its a good thing that all your base are belong to us, because it seems they really to have no chance to survive make their time.

      I can feel the negative karma building....

  28. Obligatory NYT note by pacc · · Score: 2

    Go to http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
    to get rid of free registration.

    It's a free world

  29. You say you are a what? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a fellow american I am offended that you think we should be shuting down kazaa servers. It is an established principle of the US that we go after the people who break the law, not those that make the tools used to do so, especially if the tools have functions besides the ones that are illegal. When the US decides to ban civilian gun ownership (see also hell freezes over, pigs fly...) THEN we can start to talk about making kazaa illegal.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      Kazaa is 99% copyrighted material trading, don't kid yourself. It's for people that want to download mp3's and for people that want to download warez but our too stupid to understand newsgroups. So in this case removing the tool is a valid and sensible option. And in America, we do go after people that make the tools readily available. You don't think a "FREE UZI'S" store in Caprini Green would be ok do you? I mean, they're not killing people, just giving the tools away, right?

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:You say you are a what? by KelsoLundeen · · Score: 2
      It's for people that want to download mp3's and for people that want to download warez but our too stupid to understand newsgroups.

      Which brings up an interesting point. Why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after places like Giganews and UsenetServer and Easynews?

      Why aren't they raising a stink about usenet?

    3. Re:You say you are a what? by evilmonkey_666 · · Score: 1

      It's legal to sell guns in the US. If you want to sell them with price tag of $0, [with popups;)] that's your business!

      --


      - PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
    4. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      The point is an Uzi really doesn't serve any purpose but to smoke people.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    5. Re:You say you are a what? by ralphie98 · · Score: 1

      methinks it's because usenet DOES have many legal uses and would be a major pain in the ass for them to shut down. If those companies were to remove certain binary groups from their servers, I have no doubt that the posters would hijack a different group and fill that up with mp3/porn/movies.

      I also think it has something to do with the popularity of p2p vs. usenet. Not that many people know how to use usenet whereas any dummy can download kazaa and be running in no time without configuration.

      --
      I am a nobody. Since nobody is perfect, that means that I am perfect.
    6. Re:You say you are a what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd like to have something to smoke people with when they try to break into my apartment.

    7. Re:You say you are a what? by Afrosheen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there's nothing in the law that says you have to buy a gun. If guns are given away, no problem, as long as the potential owners are filling out forms and waiting per the Brady Bill. If everything checks out, no problem.

      Free guns argument= irrelevant.

      Tools are tools. Don't think that Adobe gets sued because some kid Photoshops pictures of something he's auctioning on Ebay to get a better price. Don't think that Stanley tools get sued if someone gets bludgeoned to death with a Stanley hammer. Tools that can have multiple purposes are usually not privy to scrutiny. Password-cracking programs and network scanners aren't really considered illegal tools either, because they can be used for checking security leaks/holes.

    8. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      If you think you need an Uzi then it's pretty apparent you've never actually fired a gun, but we're getting off-topic here.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    9. Re:You say you are a what? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      One of the things that is great about America is that (supposedly, I wonder with ashcroft running around out there) is that you will not be punished for the actions of others. Taking P2P away from Americans would punish those who use it fairly. The argument that most use of something is illegal just doesn't hold water.

      Another thing, allowing guns in any way facilitates guns getting into the hands of criminals. I don't have the exact number, but most guns used in street crime are legal at point of sale. AND guns kill people, pirated music does not! I know 2 people who have been killed in the street by guns, one of them was not involved in gangs in any way and had just received a scholarship for B-Ball to get himself (and probably his family) out of the ghetto.

      If we are not willing to take strong measures to control guns, why the hell would we control media piracy?

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    10. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      No, but if 99% of the people that bought a Stanley hammer bludgeoned their wives, then we'd have something. You can't tell me you don't think that the majority of people using Kazaa our doign things with it that would definately fall under copyright violation laws. Same thing with the Uzi example. Their are a lot of guns in the world, but some of them exist for the soul purpose of killing people. Uzi's make shitty target guns, you can't hunt with them, and obviously they're overkill for home defense, so all that remains is a weapon used to cut people down in the street. Same principle: p2p technology isn't bad by default, but one of it's apps, Kazaa, is nothing more than a warez and mp3 trading software.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    11. Re:You say you are a what? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

      And the point is that Kazaa really doesn't serve any purpose but to share copyrighted material.

      If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    12. Re:You say you are a what? by Jordy · · Score: 2

      Yes yes, and 99% of people use bongs for smoking pot and not tabacco.

      What you may not realize is 1% is actually quite a big number when you are talking about 60 million users (600,000) or 500 million files (5,000,000.)

      This is why Napster had such a hard time filtering. They had a system that could filter 99% of all copyrighted works accurately, but that last 1% represented a giant gaping hole.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    13. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's what I've been saying (shout)in like every fucking reply in this thread(shout).

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    14. Re:You say you are a what? by doctormetal · · Score: 1

      Kazaa is 99% copyrighted material trading, don't kid yourself. It's for people that want to download mp3's and for people that want to download warez but our too stupid to understand newsgroups. So in this case removing the tool is a valid and sensible option. And in America, we do go after people that make the tools readily available.

      So you say we must remove all tools that can distribute illegal material, so all software that in any way uses HTTP, FTP, IRC, MSN, ICQ or AOL protocols must be removed; all of them are/can be used to share copyrighted material.

    15. Re:You say you are a what? by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      unicron writes " The point is an Uzi really doesn't serve any purpose but to smoke people."

      Of course, your own UZI is what keeps you from getting smoked.

      If you give up your guns, you'll only have the right to say "Thank you Sir... May I have another."

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    16. Re:You say you are a what? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      Kazaa is 99% copyrighted material trading, don't kid yourself...

      So you say we must remove all tools that can distribute illegal material, so all software that in any way uses HTTP, FTP, IRC, MSN, ICQ or AOL protocols must be removed; all of them are/can be used to share copyrighted material.

      Whoa, hang on a minute. I don't think that was what was said. The original poster suggested that the Kazaa network should be shut down because a majority (a very significant majority--the 99% figure may be low) use it to inappropriately distribute copyrighted works.

      Whether I agree with that position or not is something I will save for another post. But it's embarrassing to yourself and insulting to the rest of us to set up a straw man like that ("So you say we must remove all tools...") and pretend you're making a reasoned reply. All you're doing is making the same kneejerk "If they shut down x which is used almost exclusively to further illegal activities, they'll have to shut down w, y, and z, and the rest of the internet because they can also be used for illegal purposes" argument.

      Thanks, we've heard it. Please find a new topic on which to whore karma.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    17. Re:You say you are a what? by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      So you say we must remove all tools that can distribute illegal material,

      That is not what he said. He pointed out that Kazaa is about 99% used to distribute illegal material, and argued that since it is used very little for legal transfers, it is fair game. The term is "contributory infringement" and it's been around a long time. The legal standard, I believe, is whether there are "substantial non-infringing" uses. So a hammer has substantial non-infringing (or more appropriately for this example "non-illegal") uses since people build with them in large percentage. Uzis probably don't have "substantial non-illegal" uses.

      You may remember a little case a few decades back involving Sony and the movie industry. The industry wanted to sue Sony as contributorily infringing copyrighted works by providing a device that allowed people to copy shows off TV. Sony won the case (and we hence all can legally have VCRs and DVD players) because VCRs were found to have "substantial non-infringing uses." The court said VCRs can be used for all kinds of copying that is not infringing and within fair use of copyright.

      They didn't buy this argument from Napster. The non-infringing uses of Napster were not considered "substantial" I suppose.

      Which was the point of the original post--Kazaa may have non-infringing use, but not much, especially compared to its infringing uses.

      All that said, I think the DMCA was the worst piece of legislation ever written. I also think we need a "Fair Use Bill-O-Rights." Fair use is not a right, it is an affirmative defense against infringement. The RIAA can technologically take away our fair use and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

    18. Re:You say you are a what? by Theom · · Score: 0

      How about... sharing public domain material? And what do you have against sharing copyrighted material -- Linux, OOo etc. are copyrighted, aren't they?

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    19. Re:You say you are a what? by trotski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but if 99% of the people that bought a Stanley hammer bludgeoned their wives, then we'd have something.

      You're re-enforcing the original argument. Hand guns serve no other purpose but killing people (rifels and such can also be used for hunting, but no one hunts with a handgun). Most hand guns are purchased with the intent of killing someone. I mean even if someone purchases a handgun for self-defence, by self-defence they mean to kill someone trying to hurt them. The trouble is that most practical applications for handguns involve illegal activity, after all... self-defence with a handgun is often a crime (excessive force, etcetera.)

      So it can be said that most people purchase a gun with the intent to kill or hurt a person, which in most cases is illegal. Therefore if you make kazaa illegal, you must make guns illegal to keep your argument concistant.

      Theres plenty of examples like this, for example drug parafanelia (bongs, pipes, etc) which is used for illegal purposes 100% of the time but is still legal.

      I guess the point is that it's not a question whether kazaa is used for illegal purposes is not. It's a question of money, and who has it. It has nothing to do with whether the purpose of kazaa is legal or not. If the record industry wasn't calling foul or screaming and crying (like Hilary Rosen for example) about lost profits, the gov't wouldn't waste it's time attacking kazaa.

      Thats my $0.02, whats yours?

      --

      "Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
    20. Re:You say you are a what? by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you magically turned every hand gun in the USA into a banana exactly the same number of homicides would occur (or possibly not)

    21. Re:You say you are a what? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      I have used a P2P client (don't use Kazaa, spyware...) to download the original uncopyrighted work of a band comprised of several of my coworkers.

      Are you saying I don't mater because I am in the minority?

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    22. Re:You say you are a what? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

      To use the same analogy, I'm sure there are people out there that use an Uzi to hunt deer legally. That doesn't change the fact that the other 99.9% of Uzis are being used to kill people.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    23. Re:You say you are a what? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      If you magically turned every hand gun in the USA into a banana exactly the same number of homicides would occur (or possibly not)

      Absolutly not! What a stupid argument. Guns make killing as easy as taking an instant photograph. Point and click.

      To kill someone with a knife or blunt weapon is a horrific thing to do. For one, one blow rarely kills someone. I doubt that many of the killings that happen through guns would have happened had the killer been forced to get blood on their own hands. If you don't believe me, take a look at the murder rates in countries that don't have guns. Huge difference.

      However, the US has made it's bed on this issue. There are just far too many weapons around. Banning them would only make sure that it's only criminals that have them. That would be far worse.

  30. Xerox stock plummets after copyright legal cases. by thebitninja · · Score: 4, Informative

    As the court room drama around file copying programs continues, photocopier companies relocate to foreign lands to try and protect themselves from copyright infringment. Pen companies worry about the uses to which their products may be put and all photography companies temporarily suspend trading, worried that users may photograph copy protected items. Once the floodgates have been pried open even a crack it's all on!

  31. The Real Reason for War w/ Iraq by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Is because the citizens of Iraq are downloading copyrighted Divxed DVD PRON from Americans. The PIAA(Porn Industry Artists of America) were really pissed when this happend, and so told bush to start a new WAR against this terrorist nation.

    Americans quickly became suspicious about the war, but continued to supply Iraq and it's terrorists with "Ammunition".

    Lol, seriously though. I think that the U.S. is going the way that those far out religious books claim: There will be one unified nation, war will rage accross the planet, and Pr0n will no longer be free, etc. etc.
    I hate those books..

    Turn every stone and there I am.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  32. If a US Judge decides he has juristiction over... by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

    a company elsewhere in the world, simply because it makes money off of U.S. Citizens, then don't I have juristiction over the RIAA, since they sell things to people in my house?

    I think the US will see just about the same as far as results are concerned as I will in my 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the RIAA for violating rules in my house.

  33. The comment of a dane ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regarding the servers on Danish soil ...

    They can ask the danish govenment to look into the matter.

    The Danish people's represenatatives, will then in a democratic fashion, decide if we find this activity reasonable or not.

    If we do find it reasonable, the enterainment industry will just have to go after the lawbreakers - the US internet users ....

    Alternatively the US government can just stop US'ians connecting to the danish servers.

    Or should we get the same treatment as Saddam and other terrorists ?

    1. Re:The comment of a dane ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Mr danish hi-horse is in town..

      Umm yes the danes will look at it and come up with the most reasonable solution... Denmark after all created Copy-Dan, a brilliant solution.

      The danish superiority complex ranks a close second to the Netto line of annoying things in this country.

    2. Re:The comment of a dane ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Denmark after all created Copy-Dan, a brilliant solution.

      The danish RIAA ... Copy-dan is a private company and as such, can hardly be labled a product of the danish people. Check your facts before posting.

      The danish superiority complex ?!?

      Lets adopt some chineese priciples as well as the american "money (companies) before people" - principle - sounds like a sane idea

      how about "government before people" instead of that overrated freedom of speech thing ...

  34. Only the strong know justice... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    "How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"

    The US is the most powerful country in the world. We can bully almost anyone... :-(

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    1. Re:Only the strong know justice... by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The US is the most powerful country in the world. We can bully almost anyone... :-(

      The ones we can't bully: the ones with nukes. Israel. Pakistan. India. Etc. Which is the real reason for all the anti-Iraq Hysteria, IMO. If Hussein gets nukes, we have to go find someone else to kick around as our Middle Eastern Devil.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    2. Re:Only the strong know justice... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      Oh, don't get me started on the Iraq thing....

      I feel that it is going to be a despicable "blood for votes" campaign. I believe that the November election's is the only reason that Bush is pushing it so hard.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    3. Re:Only the strong know justice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day you will grow up and perhaps end up being tasked with providing some sort of security to someone ...
      Perhaps , then you will understand that facing responsibility of defending nation like US from so many threats from abroad and from inside is a bit different league than sitting on some 3rd rate web site and talking about government conspiracy.

    4. Re:Only the strong know justice... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      Good atempt at a troll but it failed. Someday you'll open your eyes and see the political animal for what it is...

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  35. What if......... by yokem_55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if the Internet itself had its own law, independent of the jusridiction of any other state? Would this be at all possible? It could be argued that the internet, since it recognizes no geographical boundaries, and exists in its own "cyber-space" could have its own soveriegnty. Computers connected to the internet would be subject to the "law of the internet" and their owners would be responsible for those computers under "internet law." Users of the Internet could have "citizenship," pay some taxes, vote in "internet-land" elections....why not?

    --
    ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    1. Re:What if......... by doorbot.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Users of the Internet could have "citizenship," pay some taxes, vote in "internet-land" elections....why not?

      Do you really think that "VOTING BY 31337 Ha><oRs" is "teh win?"

      How about those who actually own the pipes and routers decide?

    2. Re:What if......... by Artagel · · Score: 2

      1) Nobody will ever know.
      2) Nope.
      3) Fish in the ocean do not recognize political boundaries. (I assume you mean the imaginary lines people draw on land and water to divide it up, not the fact that a mountain chain can be a pain in the ass to swim across if you are a fish.) Similarly, fish can be thought of as having their own sovereignty.
      4) Until the "internet" has armed forces to enforce its decisions, it will have to pay attention to the countries with armies. Just like sovereignty is an exclusive power, to have that power sovereignty must exclude other sovereigns. All the internet country has to do is push the others out. Until then, it will have a lot in common with the nation of fishes. Not able to do much about how the countries of the world regulate how they are harvested. Or don't.

    3. Re:What if......... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2

      Yaah, that's what we need...ICANN with the force of law.

    4. Re:What if......... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "why not"? where to begin? i'll come back with one reason why not: law is hollow without a police force. who is your police force, w3c?

      "hello, sir, this is tim berners-lee. we understand that you tried to hack into a website. i am armed with electro-pulse devices and will disable your computer if you resist. please follow me to internet jail."

    5. Re:What if......... by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2

      How about those who actually own the pipes and routers decide?

      You mean those nice fellas over at Worldcom? :-)

    6. Re:What if......... by bshanks · · Score: 1

      As PhxBlue said, "And consider that an internet government would be at least as crooked as any other - and who would it answer to when it ran amok with whatever powers it was given?"

      The other reason is that there is currently no (really practical) way for a citizen to be a citizen of cyberspace without also being a citizen of some other country too. Hence there can't be any citizens of cyberspace who are not also vulnerable to the laws of some nation.

    7. Re:What if......... by ronabop · · Score: 1
      The "voters" in most early democracies were the land"owners", those who "owned" the conduits (roads), those who "owned" the knowledge... the original voters were those withan "ownership" stake, not those who had any benefits.

      Those who lived on the land, built the roads, or created the knowledge itself had no votes.

      Wonder why societies changed that?

      -Bop

    8. Re:What if......... by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

      Those who lived on the land, built the roads, or created the knowledge itself had no votes.

      The Internet is:

      1. Not owned by the public.
      2. Not a right reserved for the public.
      3. Not a form of government.

      I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why "internet-land" should have "voters" and if it did, why those voters should be the "public" and not the people/corporations who actually pay to keep the internet running.

      If you want the internet to be truly free (as in speech and beer), you'll have to spend the money yourself. If you don't pay, you get no say (refer to the list above).

  36. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by DSL-Admin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly my point..... Money seems to make everything ok and legal... The more money you bribe and pay off, the more things you can do!!

  37. Why is it... by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    I guess what I don't understand is the selective application of responsibility in the U.S. Guns are not Illigal. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for crimes commited (mis)using their products. End users are responsible. Sharing Files is not Illigal. Software makers/ISPs *are* responsible for crimes commited (mis)using their products. End users are also responsible. Maybe we should adopt a new motto: "Software doesn't infringe on copyrights, people do". - Roach

    1. Re:Why is it... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2
      A better argument was made in the case of copy machines. Better because it doesn't try to convince the public, but it convinced the legislature. That argument is why at my local libraries, each copier has a lable above it saying something about making copies without permission violates section 15 of something. Otherwise it would say "Please visit the Central Office with your written permission to make photocopies. -- And remember: our copy machines don't violate copyright, you do."

      It's not the individuals who are making the stink about it, its the big corporations. The corps and the laws they can get their congresscritters to pass. So write your congresscritter. Also, you would be interested in this bill where Rep. Lofgren basically codifies what you are trying to get across.

      frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:Why is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly... so if that applies that they are committing a crime by allowing illegal files to be shared... well then we may as well take the companies who make cd or dvd burners to court, because they enable pirating. Also i think they should no longer create pants or jackets with pockets since they help people shoplift. Problem solved!

    3. Re:Why is it... by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall lawsuits against a couple of gun makers by families of victims of gun-related crimes....

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  38. Re:the Dutch(ie) approach by siskbc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hey, stop hogging the reefer!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  39. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by DSL-Admin · · Score: 0, Troll

    No... don't think so... I live here.. I have an American name... unlike you...btw.... with a name like "mao che minh" Why don't you go home..

  40. Online Gambling? by siskbc · · Score: 1

    DOJ don't always get their guy...those offshore bookies have been running for years. They can't come back here, but I don't think they care, living in their Caribbean tropical paradise and all...

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  41. Foreigners violating US law in their own countries by heretical_thoughts · · Score: 1
    The problem lies with foreign subsidiaries of American firms. U.S. law claims to have authority to stop these subsidiaries (even those only partially owned by U.S. firms) from violating U.S. law. Hence some Canadian companies can't trade with Cuba, lest their executives get dragged into U.S. court. If you are a Canadian (or probably other non-USians) who gets your internet access through a company that is even partially owned by the U.S. then actions such as this can affect you too. That global media consolidation will come back to bite us on the ass yet.

    The truest form of democracy - One Man, One Vote. Bush is The Man and he gets to Vote.

  42. China, the new champion of free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    China is one country where the US's influence is iffy at best. Being too cozy with US demands, especially when they're so obviously coming from corporate interests, is political suicide in China. You know for all the talk about the great firewall and all this hype about oppression in China it's intersting to note that China is currently the biggest market for backbone switching equipment. So let the US clamp down on information exchange full bore. Hell, I'm sure we'll be seeing executions of children caught sharing toys on the playgrounds soon. That will shape up those little fuckers and show the rest of the world how to run a free country.

    Remember kids, scientific studies have shown that the death penalty is the only way to prevent file sharing and other forms of terrorism.

  43. wired by asv108 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wired had an article about KaZaA's globalization strategy a few weeks ago.

    1. Re:wired by bobetov · · Score: 1
      I just loved this:
      "I am shocked that Tiscali ... believes that by entering into an agreement with an unauthorized service it will promote the development of legitimate online offerings," said Jay Berman, chairman of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a global music industry organization.
      You have to love the guys protecting our musicians' rights to record, sell and distribute phonographic content! Let's here it for keeping up with the frickin' times.

      --
      Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    2. Re:wired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fucktard, they have been around since the phonograph, hence the name. Fucking moron. You can't even troll that well.

  44. Lawyer's images of Hillary and Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Extracted from the article is the following qutoe from one of the RIAA lawyers:
    "The copyright industries around the world are not going to stand still and let other companies build businesses off the sweat of their brow simply because they're willing to set up shop in some other country," said Matt Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America."


    For some reason, I just see a Saturday night live skit: Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti at the gym working out on the treadmills, talking about crushing those no good file sharing thieves .... Valenti starts to sweat, has a heart attack... gets carried off the back of the belt. Rosen get's off her treadmill, slips on puddles of perspiration gushing from her furrowed brow and ends up in an ambulance vowing that it was KaZaA's fault since the mop boy was off listening to his illegally downloaded copy of the latest Britney song.

    Ok, so maybe that was a little twisted. I still can't imagine HR or JV with sweaty brows.
  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. US forces world so suck the ... by lo_fye · · Score: 1

    Unless the world agrees to let the US's copyright laws rule the net, there's a big roadbump...

    Either the world must agree on some copyright laws (requires new global governance structure), or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...

    Example: Just because a catholic town banns earth-based religions doesn't mean the entire world should, especially towns whose primary religion is earth-based.

    --
    geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
    1. Re:US forces world so suck the ... by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless the world agrees to let the US's copyright laws rule the net, there's a big roadbump... Either the world must agree on some copyright laws (requires new global governance structure), or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...

      I take it you've never heard of Bush's "U.S. Does whatever it wants" plan?

      All this, and more would be possible, under such a proposal.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:US forces world so suck the ... by Scarblac · · Score: 2

      Either the world must agree on some copyright laws

      They do. Ever heard of the Berne convention, that sort of thing? Copyright law is international, based on treaties.

      [...] or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...

      Of course they can. They do nothing illegal under copyright law. Their users may break the law, but that doesn't mean KaZaa is breaking it. That's what a Dutch court decided, using the existing, international, copyright law.

      What this world needs isn't international laws for this sort of thing, but a United States that doesn't choose to ignore them whenever it pleases them.

      Then, we'll also shoot Kazaa for that stuff like stealing Amazon royalties from charities and other websites. They should hang for that.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  47. Re:your sig by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    Science is the discovery of God's methods. To deny science is to deny God. -- Me

    Can I deny God but still believe in Science? Because I don't go in for all that flowing-beard-and-sandals nonsense.

  48. demographics. by gimpboy · · Score: 1

    their target audiences have yet to discover the wonders of alt.binaries..... once people start using usenet in the same numbers as the people currently using kazaa, you will see them start targeting usenet.

    recently thought there was a sting on people distributing warez on usenet, i believe.

    --
    -- john
  49. The dutch connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands
    In A documentairy about the original kazaa developers that was rerun not to long ago in the netherlands the original kazaa team (2 people) lived in the netherlands but had their coding done in rusia. Also judging from their interviews I think Its unlikely they still have anything to to with kazaa. They where not really happy about their project during and after their dutch lawsuits, that why they sold it. I can`t imagine them getting invited by sharman to help out and accept but I haven`t read anything factual about recent dutch involvement so who knows. There are ofcourse other dutch developers with p2p filesharing experiancethat apear not that bussy at the moment ;-)

  50. How far? by 1010011010 · · Score: 0

    How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?

    Apparently all the way up my ass.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  51. I refuse to log on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone please paste teh article here? thx

  52. American Law by ShwAsasin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    American Law only goes as far as their bombs, which in this world means anywhere...

  53. Why not, indeed? by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mostly because no existing government would give up their sovereignty willingly.

    And consider that an internet government would be at least as crooked as any other - and who would it answer to when it ran amok with whatever powers it was given?

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    1. Re:Why not, indeed? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

      Eh. Counterpoint.EU involves giving up a bit of sovereignty.

      Internet government is an interesting idea for us voters, but I don't see sufficient reasons for governments to give up their sovereignty in this case.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    2. Re:Why not, indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they aren't giving up their millitary.

  54. Re:your sig by perljon · · Score: 1

    Science can exists without God, or so goes the theory. But it seams illogical to deny Science and promote God. After all, each time said God touches the Earth, some scientist will be sitting there explaining what in God's rule system allowd for the change to take place.

    --
    This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
  55. US Law and it's extent by thskyt · · Score: 1

    As far as Denmark is concerned, US law won't do much. The country doesn't "hand out" it's own citizens to other countries, no matter what the charges are.

    1. Re:US Law and it's extent by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Just flat-out wrong. Denmark and the US have a bilateral extradition treaty dating back to July 31, 1974. Try doing some research occasionally.

      http://www.federalcriminallaw.com/bilateral.htm

    2. Re:US Law and it's extent by thskyt · · Score: 1

      Nope - that isn't wrong. Take a look at this document from the Danish government, regarding just a case, where a Danish citizen is convicted of a crime in a foreign country (India, in this example) and won't be handed out due the Danish restrictions. http://www.folketinget.dk/Samling/20012/spor_sv/S1 487.htm You may want to try some sort of translator on it.

    3. Re:US Law and it's extent by thskyt · · Score: 1

      In addition to the last document, here is another one describing the extent of foreing extradition requests: http://www.folketinget.dk/Samling/20012/udvbilag/R EU/B93_bilag12.htm - especially question 29 is noteworthy. It states, in short terms, that only a final sentence, granting more than 4 months of jail, and no more than 3 years in the foreign country, will be used as possible reason for handing out Danish citizens. Furthermore, the victim must have convicted what would be a crime in Denmark.

    4. Re:US Law and it's extent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for anyone that doesn' speak danish, that link is an example of someone not being extradited. certainly doesn't mean that other people can't be extradited... thskyt, you are marginally correct in that it is very difficult to extradite from denmark... but people are tried here instead (even for crimes committed abroad) and furthermore the extradition protection is only for danish citizens.

    5. Re:US Law and it's extent by thskyt · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in that a person would be tried over here, if not extradited, and yes; it only applies to Danish citizens, which was what I (if I had forgot to tell so) was trying to say. I'm not saying that foreign citizens won't be extradited to other countries - and furthermore, Danish citizens would be extradited for even the smallest crimes - but only to other Scandinavian countries. I'm still trying to find a reasonable translator from Danish into English, but so far, I haven't been succesful.

    6. Re:US Law and it's extent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Thats cuz there ain't one. Travlang's tourist dictionary is about as close at it gets for online danish translation.

    7. Re:US Law and it's extent by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0

      Last time it took the Germans about 24 hours to overrun your little country.
      How long would it take for US ?
      Dare to guess ?

    8. Re:US Law and it's extent by thskyt · · Score: 1

      Who talked about overrunning?

      Furthermore, the Germans didn't overrun, the government let them have the country as to avoid any destruction of cultural monuments and to minimize civil casualties.

  56. NYT article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone post the article, I don't have a password or user name....

    Not all of us want to give this out.

    1. Re:NYT article by fro_less · · Score: 0

      user name: stupid password: stupid seriously

    2. Re:NYT article by fro_less · · Score: 0

      sorry, user: stupid password: stupid

  57. Re:your sig by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    So like, when a meteor hits the earth, that's God touching it? Or like X-rays from a distant star, that's God?

    If believing in observable physical phenomena means I believe in God, then I'll take a front-row seat under the big top when the revival comes to town.

    I always though God meant something more than that, like believing in am omniscient or omnipresent "being," which to me seems totally retarded to even think about because there's no way that our non-omniscient bounded-by-time brains are going to be able to "understand" this God thing in the first place.

  58. What are they smoking? by fro_less · · Score: 0

    RIAA did not learn a thing from their Napster experience.
    "... three million people typically use the KaZaA Media Desktop software at any given time, collectively providing access to half a billion files, Sharman said, roughly double Napster's usage at its peak. "
    I don't know about 3 million users, but KaZaa does have a substantial amount of file trading. The industry is using the same old tactics that it uses against traditional pirates, litigation or bribe politicians to make rules favoring them. Peer to peer networks will be around as long as the Internet is in its present form. Their only options are: 1) Buy out Sharman Networks, and create a killer marketing tool 2) Destroy the Internet and remake into a corporate friendly environment 3) Litigate KaZaa into submission, and hope that the next P2P app is not impossible to subjugate. The smart thing to do would be option 1; they can co-opt P2P like they did the rest of the Internet, but without serious revision to their groupthink, and RIAA are going for option 3. Hilary Rosen needs a window so she can see out of her stomach.

  59. RIAA FAQ by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

    Surprisingly, the RIAA's rep provided a great description of the RIAA's members:
    "The copyright industries around the world are not going to stand still and let other companies build businesses off the sweat of their brow simply because they're willing to set up shop in some other country," said Matt Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America.

    Thanks to such legal wonders as "work for hire" these companies are building businesses off the sweat of artists' brows.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  60. Osama by t0qer · · Score: 2

    Guy has a $26 million dollar price tag on his head DOA and we still can't catch him.

    Goes to show the .gov only catches those they REALLY want to catch.

    1. Re:Osama by ThePlumber2 · · Score: 1

      Hes already dead. The US does not believe in assasination so, they say that they havent found him yet.

      Hes been dead for quite a while Im sure.... A million points of light, kinder, gentler, and more sneaky than a snake.

      --
      Thanks, Steve
    2. Re:Osama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or, by extension, those whom it's politically expedient to catch. no captive osama = long drawn out war on terrorism = guaranteed votes for gop next election. what kind of anti-patriot would vote against the party who's in the middle of carrying out a war in our best interests?

  61. Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some artists WANT thir work shared. Actually, ALL artists not under the RIAA yoke want their work shared.

    The free speech that is being stifled is these artists who WANT their speech/song/poetry disseminated. These are the files the RIAA doesn't want shared, not Britney's. They know full well sharing Britney's MP3s only helps her, and that sharing indie music hurts her.

    1. Re:Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, someone with a clue.

      This isn't about stopping piracy, it's about controlling distribution of media.

      After all the RIAA attacks on napster, audiogalaxy, etc. i can still find the latest eminem or korn or whatever pop crap kids listen to these days but the indie stuff from this and other countries is now much harder to find.

      And that's exactly what they wanted anyways.

    2. Re:Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, ALL artists not under the RIAA yoke want their work shared.

      I don't want my music shared; and if you heard it, you wouldn't either!

  62. US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Baki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading stories like this must make the last few europeans that still generally have sympathetic feelings towards the US 'defect'.

    I recon myself to be one of those. And yes I do know that not every american is to blame for such arrogant and stupid behaviour, but still, I begin to understand why the USA are so much hated in many parts of the world.

    The arrogance and one sidedness (unilateralism) is getting to the point that it is simply unacceptable, also to people who always felt that the US are our allies such as myself.

    The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own. That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.

    I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait, but remember whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, what I write still in very mild terms (coming from a european with over-average sympathetic feelings towards the US) what more than 90% of europeans are feeling by actions like this.

    Criticising other peoples for such 'infidelity' (i.e. being arrogant in the eyes of people with constructive criticism) won't cause such feelings to go away, on the contrary. I don't think it is helpful for the US to loose its last remaining allies in the world.

    1. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0

      What stories ?
      The fact that US has an internal discussion how to enforce its own laws ?
      In another words, it tries to take care of its own interest and , of course, this is a fucking crime these days where we all supposed to be marching to the same drummer.

      Ah, the hypocrisy of Europeans who accuse US of everything under the sun while at the same time relying on its military to prevent mass murder in the middle of their own fucking continent.
      How about this : before you ?worry? about environment and accusing us of not playing along with your nonsense , please make sure there are no people being slaughtered in your own backyard.
      Please, clean up your own fucking place before accusing US of being "evil".

    2. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by enkidu55 · · Score: 1

      Aside from the misuse of the word loose which is one of my pet peeves, I would have to agree with the author here. No matter where he/she/they come from, it must be getting pretty hard to ally with American practices when it seems like more and more we are running roughshod around the planet like we have eminent domain of the frigging thing.

    3. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      thanks you for using "one sidedness" and not the big U word after it, i goes to an midwestern american public high school

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    4. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US to loose its last remaining allies in the world US has allies?!

    5. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by reflector · · Score: 2

      i couldn't possibly agree with you more. i happen to live in the us, and i absolutely despise bush, cheney, ashcroft and rumsfeld (not that the democrats are much better). i do what i can to undermine the authority of the federal government and corporate america, which i consider to be the enemy of humanity, not just the enemy of americans. many of my friends feel the same way as i do.

      if i travel abroad in the near future, i will likely introduce myself as being canadian, i am so sickened and embarassed by what america has become.

    6. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even realize that other places, especially Europe, are so much more corrupted that US looks like a fucking virgin compared to say France or Italy?

    7. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by reflector · · Score: 2

      how is that even relevant? i'm talking about how america is on the decline due to the usurping of power by oil companies and military contractors via bush et al. i'm not comparing america to other countries, just comparing it to what it could and should be.

    8. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by serutan · · Score: 2

      I think you are absolutely correct, and I think it's an indication of the confidence level of those who rule the USA. The more invincible you feel, the easier it is to act like a complete asshole. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What are they going to do about it? That, I believe, sums up our foreign policy at this point.

    9. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      Don't blame the U.S. if your own government is willing to adopt our rules.

    10. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Ringlord · · Score: 1

      Often the government is pressured, not willing

    11. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by mpe · · Score: 2

      The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own.

      The US might be able to preasure individual countries or even bomb weak countries like Afganistan and Iraq into the ground. The problem will come when the US finds itself in conflict with more than one other country, even a transnational alliance.

      That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.

      The US or at least the US government is unlikely to get the message. The signs are there, an attempt to overthrow a South American government failed, countries friendly to the US openly oppose US foreign policy, enemies of a country the US has targeted for destruction offer to stand with that country.

      I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait,

      "patriotic" can mean "my country right or wrong", "my government right or wrong" or in the case of somewhere the US loyalty to the US Constitution. One intersting definition I recently saw is "Being patriotic is being loyal to your country at all times and loyal to your government when it deserves it".

    12. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even realize that other places, especially Europe, are so much more corrupted that US looks like a fucking virgin compared to say France or Italy?

      But the French and Italian corruption tends to stay within Europe, typically within France and Italy. When did the French or Italian governments enguage in "regiem change"?
      When it comes to fucking with other countries governments (in the case of quite a few in Central and South America "rape" is a more appropriate metaphore) the US lost its virginity a long time ago.

    13. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Often the government is pressured, not willing"

      An unwillingness to fight is the same as a willingness to accept.

      Talking about a loss of goodwill for the U.S. is fine, but do something about it. Create embargos on Disney, Microsoft, etc. I really wish you (EU) would. It's unsettling to know that we, the U.S. have become so dependent on foreign income from the trade of IP which can *only* be protected by easily broken promises.

      If it's true that the U.S. governement bows to corporate pressure, then it's also true that European consumers have a vote in U.S. policy.

  63. Knowledge and Money by ilyahndre · · Score: 1

    Guns have been around for so long, knowledge of their use and who's to blame in a murder is well known. If the manufacturer hadn't made it, the criminal would have done it by another means. The same goes for file sharing. If Kazaa didn't exist, some other program would. You could say that the internet itself is a file sharing protocol? So why don't we shut down the internet?

    The other issue is the the music/video industry (those pushing this) aren't entirely intelligent. They can't see past the end of their own nose, or over their money filled pockets to realize what the real source of the problem is. They see there are so many people using a program (legal, or illegaly) and assume they are all downloading a copy of copyrighted material. The only way that they can think of, is to destroy the software that allows the sharing to happen in the first place. Their desicion is highly misguided. If they want to get rid of filesharing protocols, they'll have to shut down the internet.

    Perhaps what the music industry wanted was to be the first to introduce something like kazaa. Since they didn't get the first, second or even third slot, they feel the need to destroy everybody elses' software.

  64. It doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    omebody just post it, ok?

  65. Significant non-infringing use by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2

    KaZaA is only a symptom of the "disease" that the [MP,RI]AA considers P2P networks.

    Suppose one of my friends creates a demo tape that he wants to get out into the world to create some buzz. I could very easily publish it on the P2P networks, create a band web site, and hope it takes off. Now, it is perfectly legal (if my friend gave me permission) to use P2P to distribute this music. It would also be significantly cheaper than paying bandwidth charges to a local ISP if I hosted all of those MP3's on the web site.

    So, I've now used technology for a perfectly good and legal activity. So, now I'm supposed to do without because some KaZaA users can't control themselves? If that logic had prevailed in earlier days you wouldn't have a VCR today.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Significant non-infringing use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, now I'm supposed to do without because some KaZaA users can't control themselves?

      But isn't that the root evil of the plethora of "lifestyle" laws? Drugs, speed limits, prostitution, underage sex/drinking, gambling, etc. etc. etc.

      Why can't we drive through a red traffic light at 3AM when nobody is around?

      Fact is, we are a people absolutely dedicated to "denying onto others everything which we don't care about doing ourselves."

      It's mean spirited, but then, that's the US way.

  66. The neverending wars by LoRider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is with us Americans who are so eager to start these wars that have no end and no possible way of really winning. They just go on and on and on.

    War on drugs.
    War on terrorism.
    War on people who break copyright laws.

    What next? Instead of waging "war" on everything we don't like, why not try and be alittle more creative.

    Since there is no way that the RIAA or MPAA is going to stop people from making copies of their shit, why not embrace the technology?

    How many people would pay for music if the recording industry charged $9 a cd if you could download it off the net or $11 if you wanted a hardcopy along with the ability to download.

    However they do it, if they just made music available to people in various formats on fast servers, people would buy it. Maybe not the average slashdotter, but the average consumer would.

    I am disgusted that the US governement feels it is somehow their responsibility or right to fight these battles for corporate America. Our government is nothing more than an extension of corporate America and has little to do with representing the citizens or protecting freedom.

    --
    LoRider
    1. Re:The neverending wars by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      If CDs were sub-$10, I'd surely buy more.

      However, having Kazaa Lite has allowed me to download/sample music I wouldn't normally buy without hearing it first. I've recently gotten bit by the Jazz bug. I've never really listened to Jazz, so I have no idea who the good artists are, and who to avoid. Now that I've been downloading some jazz, the likelihood that I'll buy some Jazz CDs when I go to the mall again is higher because of my Kazaa Lite usage.

      So, if the RIAA shuts down Kazaa and its clones, they're cutting off people like me. I generally buy only from bands whose works I'm familiar with. Unless someone gives me a CD to listen to, the likelihood of my buying is slim to none. And forget radio - all they play is teenie-bopper shite.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:The neverending wars by LoRider · · Score: 1

      Watch out for Jazz, it is a powerful form of music. I got into Jazz a few years ago, now I can't quit.

      The scenario you just mentioned is what many people, including myself, have done with downloading music. The music industry is very short-sighted. Like most people they don't see the big picture, or the picture that says when the economy is in the shitter people don't always want to throw down $20 on a cd.

      --
      LoRider
    3. Re:The neverending wars by mpe · · Score: 2

      What is with us Americans who are so eager to start these wars that have no end and no possible way of really winning. They just go on and on and on.

      Maybe they actually want wars without end. A state of war can be good for big business and can quell political opposition.

    4. Re:The neverending wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am disgusted that the US governement feels it is somehow their responsibility or right to fight these battles for corporate America. Our government is nothing more than an extension of corporate America and has little to do with representing the citizens or protecting freedom.

      Actually it's probably even less representative of the American people than you think. The US government appears to listen first to; a much smaller foreign country; big business (plenty of "corporate America" is small and medium sized business, non profits, etc.) and professional lobbying from wacky groups who claim to represent "silent majorities".
      The people who actually do the electing come a rather poor 4th.

    5. Re:The neverending wars by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      The music industry is very short-sighted.

      Not at all! The industry thrives on the fact that it controls all the media relating to its products. ClearChannel control the radio stations, controlling what you hear. The record labels have a lot of control of what gets prominent display in the stores. This is why the top 10 singles market is so controlled.

      p2p and the web destroys this. I used to listen to all the commercial crap. After discovering web/ftp and later napster, my musical horizons expanded in many ways. Internet radio and the next generation of p2p changed that even more. Jazz, funk, trip-hop now make up large part of my musical collection. I'm no longer buying the cheese. And that's the rub. They have spent a long time molding the industry to their tastes, and in the last 2-3 years is been getting torn appart.

      Media is changing. Copyright law exists to prevent others from profiting from other peoples work. That was to stop large scale bootlegging and "counterfeit goods". Now it is used to protect Britany Spears market share.

  67. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by Soko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the parent post:

    Wait..!!! I know why, cause they get paid for every crappy law they make.. and we all know how corrupt and money hungry politicans are!!!!!!

    From your post:

    No, they attack P2P networks because the lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, Lars Ulrich) have massive amounts of cash.

    So, you say basically the same thing, and yet tell the guy to get off of his ass, stop whining and change the system, or move to a communist or a formerly communist country. IOW, you seem to be willing to accept the status quo of lobbyists buying laws since "that's capitalism - like it, change it or leave it."

    Lesse, we have big media companies lobbying for and getting passed laws that are actually bad for consumers. In order to change this, we need to get the word out to as many voters as possible. Since it's "one person, one vote" as is proper, we need to convince lots and lots of people to fight this. OK, let's use TV air time, magazine ads, etc. In short, we need to use the, er, big media companies...

    Hmmmmmm - how effective will that be ya think? You think big media will say "Sure, shoot me with my own gun, buddy!"?? Right.

    So, what we need are ways to change the law outside of the prevue of those that make - or buy - the law. Hence, Kazaa et. al. are quite happy to allow USAians to choose to step outside the sphere of influence of the US Congress and violate a law of questionalble value to consumers. Seems like Capitalism at it's finest - consumers going to the best price for the best goods, regardless of what the US Congress thinks. As is proper.

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  68. If you don't like it, move to [country]. rrrright. by Quietti · · Score: 2, Insightful
    P.S.: if you don't like the country's political climate, then [...] why don't you just move to China or Russia
    Enough with that kind of bullshit, will ya? Just because someone disagrees with the political majority doesn't mean they suddenly feel like leaving their homeland and starting anew in another country.

    United-States is every American's country, whether he or she agrees with the majority on anything at all or not. As such, every American has the right to see its country reflect values they hold dearest. Just because someone does not have enough cash to lobby Washignton does not make them any less deserving of having a country that fullfills their dream.

    The same truth applies to every country. Every citizen has the right to demand from their country to be true to its wishes, even if those wishes are not those of lobby interests or of the political majority. You cannot demand that every person who doesn't agree with the majority leave the country for another one. This is their country too, even if they don't agree with you.

    Besides, there's no telling whether an expatriate will be welcome elsewhere either. Relocation, while it can sometimes have hugely positive aspects, has its share of burdens, such as forever being the unwelcome foreigner who needs yet another work permit and who won't likely ever land citizenship, because he or she came from the wrong country in the first place.

    --
    Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
  69. We can't do anything... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Until Bush puts KaZaa in the "Axis of Evil", then look out all you P2Pers out there!

  70. Elbonia? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Did anyone misread the comment about the source being in Estonia the way I did?

    oops, we lost the source in the mud...

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  71. Re:Xerox stock plummets after copyright legal case by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1

    It's probably not a good time to be a monkey with a typewriter either.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  72. Punish the users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Several solutions here:
    • Punish the users trading and consuming copyrighted content.
    • Make legal content appealing enough (price, quality, fair use) that illegal use becomes a minority problem.
    I don't think technology as in firewall or access restrictions will ever do it. As soon as a new roadblock to illegal access is establish a way to circumvent it is found. Look at the TVRO (satellite TV) business. What did make a dramatic change there is making legal TV appealing and convenient enough that hacking satellite receivers is more of a novelty than the norm.
  73. Re:your sig by perljon · · Score: 1

    You are looking at it all wrong. All I am saying is that if you are not a God-Believing person, then a meteor falling in smacking Saddam in the head is just a meteor falling. However, if you believe in God, and you say that God created the meteor (that hit Saddam in the forehead), then it is stupid of you to argue that Gravity doesn't exists with the sole basis of your argument being that Gravity is to complicated to exists without God. It isn't, and if you believe in God, it is stupid to argue that. Geesh, people get so emotional about such things as God. You would think it was a life or death matter.

    --
    This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
  74. Whoa! by hpavc · · Score: 1

    Ummm, anyone know about citizen options for these countries?

    --
    members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
  75. It just boils down to... by Anenga · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well, lets look at Kazaa.

    It's website is in English. It's software is in English, and it does not have a Norwegian version of the software and probably never will. Take a look at their Languages page. It doesn't even have plans to open a Norweigan version of their software, but yet they want to release it in Spanish, French and German? Spanish is basically the second most spoken language in the United States, not Norway. Now, if we take a look at the most common languages in Norway, we can see here and here that hardly anyone speaks English in Norway. Most speak, um, Norwegian (most common dialect is Bokmål).

    So, as we can plainly see, Kazaa is targeting the US demographic, not Norway/Denmark/Estonia. Yet their servers and establishments are in Denmark? Why? It's to gain marketshare and profit from the American people, yet not contribute the US. In fact, they're taking money away from the American government. There are no US taxes on the products, so your basically throwing your money away. (Yes, Money, there is now "Kazaa Plus" which costs $$$). Kazaa's advertisments target US customers, it's product is made for US customers and it's only intrest is in the US customer base.

    Kazaa is obviously not interested in P2P technology or it's future. It stole Gntuella's technology spec and re-wrote it. Kazaa also has Network Supernodes (dedicated nodes, always on) and other centralized components. So if you took those away, expect drastic changes in performance. The RIAA has pretty much presumed Kazaa was built just like that for a while. Kazaa is all about money. Take away the money, watch the developers flee. The "developers" of Kazaa have already started up similar companies. They know Kazaa will be shut down eventually, and of course they need to keep making their un-deserved millions.

    Kazaa will eventually be shut down, even if it means Jennifer Gardner running out of an exploding building in the Netherlands.

    1. Re:It just boils down to... by divec · · Score: 1
      Well, lets look at Kazaa. It's website [kazaa.com] is in English. It's software is in English and it does not have a Norwegian version of the software and probably never will. [...] Now, if we take a look at the most common languages in Norway, we can see [...] that hardly anyone speaks English in Norway.

      Well, look at A-ha. Their website is in English. Their music is in English. They don't have any Norwegian albums. Probably cos Norwegians speak very good English and use it lots in international contexts.


      There are no US taxes on the products, so your basically throwing your money away.

      "Nothing is worth having unless it's taxed". Cool :-)

      --

      perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

    2. Re:It just boils down to... by m0i · · Score: 1

      Side note, Kazaa is responsible for quite an amount of internet traffic, which turns into profitability for a few US companies. So, even if they abuse a system the same way Napster tried (system designed to be abused, given the cash-cow role of the consumer), they are not _that_ bad overall. As long as the internet keeps growing!

      --
      have you been defaced today?
  76. Preventing domestic access to some non-US servers? by upper · · Score: 2

    Congratulations, you've just reinvented the great firewall of china.

  77. Re:As far as...Mod this Mofus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANd how is this post NOT a troll?
    Are you guys modding with your ass?

    I love the "accept our military power" part.

    Countries accept US military power the same
    way that skyscrapers accept airliners.

    Take a look at US military intervenetions of the
    20th century. Uncle Adolf was a pu**y compared to Uncle Sam.
    Im sure all those countries accepted US military with open arms.

  78. To what end? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1
    I can't help but wonder about the efficacy of trying to legislate/sue/prosecute/harass the file trading software developers and community out of existence. Sure it's good business for lawyers, but it strikes me that, long term, it will be a losing battle. It seems like a big game of whack-a-mole, with the added complexity that every time you hit one, 3 stealthier moles spring up. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a next-generation of far more surreptitious file trading applications/techniques nearing completion. In addition, the recording industry seems to be winning skirmishes at the expense of angering potential customers and the very artists that provide them with the raw material of their business.

    To head off the flames, let me say as I have in past posts, that I am against the practice of violating copyright, but also despise the recording industry. I am a proponent of independent artists and independent record companies and alternative business models wherein the artist, consumer, and yes, record company all treat each other fairly and equitably.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  79. RIAA's bait and switch by ksyrium · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    "The copyright industries around the world are not going to stand still and let other companies build businesses off the sweat of their brow simply because they're willing to set up shop in some other country." said Matt Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America.

    Building business off someone else's work? I'm sure a RIAA lawyer would know NOTHING about that...

    They're not pissed over copyright law violations, they're pissed because someone else is cutting in on their action ;)

  80. Having their cake...and eating it too. by clemfoley · · Score: 1

    No wonder the USA wants no part in the International Court. When you can bully any nation into giving up their citizens to be tried in US courts, what use is the International Court to the US?

    --
    Instant Karma's gonna get you - John Lennon
  81. TheOnion is hot on the subject by puusism · · Score: 1

    TheOnion seems to be reading Slashdot (or the other way round), because the articles mix pretty neatly. It would appear that after Kazaa we won't even have radio...

    --
    - Ismo
  82. It's the Constitution, stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amendment 2: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Don't like it? Lobby Congress to repeal the amendment. Or else shut up about it.

    1. Re:It's the Constitution, stupid! by 2short · · Score: 1

      Do like it? Why aren't you petitioning the Supreme Court to let you have nukes? Ensuring that the populace at large have access to sufficient weaponry to resist the government and/or foriegn invaders if they find it neccesary, while a fine thing in 1783, is not really workable today. While it would make a lot of sense to repeal the second ammendment, the bill of rights is such a sacred cow today, it would be political suicide to suggest. It is clearly unconstitutional to not allow citizens of the US to have any weapon they please, right up into the multi-megaton range. Watching psychos nuke our cities for the sake of this principle would obviously be idiotic, so we ignore the principle to a certain degree. The question is what degree makes sense. All of which is not to say that I don't find this troubling. The "sacred" staus accorded the Bil of Rights is great for protecting basic, needed freedoms, but it prevents us from removing the obviously out of date second amendment. Those who wrap themselves in the second amendment to protect their right to a handgun should wake up. That pea-shooter is worht diddly-squat when the army comes after you, and you can't have something that isn't. The second is already dead.

  83. Ban imports by mindslip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why doesn't Bushwhacker just ban imports to the US? (Services as well as tangibles).

    Sure, keep exports going out... The world desparately needs the US to survive, but surely the US is beyond needing anything from the outside world? They barely even know one exists!

    This way, no one could violate US laws outside of the US. Better yet, the US could bully the UN into passing resolutions that enforce US laws globally!

    mindslip

  84. Open Letter To President Bush by pyramid+termite · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Go fuck yourself.

  85. Steal MP3's but not credit card numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't get why you all complain about the jack-booted thugs of the FBI coming to take away your MP3's but you're silent on the conviction of two Russians that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit cards numbers from Speakeasy.net.

    http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/a sparticles/buzz/bz10052002.asp

    Your silence is the sound of hypocrisy...

    1. Re:Steal MP3's but not credit card numbers? by greening · · Score: 1

      Well, considering this /. article is about mp3's, it's rather out of place talking about credit card numbers stolen by russians here.

      --
      Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
  86. Source code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands. How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"

    Whoa, source code in Estonia? Isn't that the place in the Dilbert cartoon that's all flooded and has those guys with long beards and funny hats?

    (Note: I'm making a joke. Estonia is not really the same as 'Elbonia.' Wherever it is. ; )

    1. Re:Source code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      estonia is cool. was there two months ago. love that country

  87. Re:How long before the first Internet-provoked war by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0

    Blah, blah blah.

    How boring and NAIVE you can get ?
    I think that is way more interesting question.

    You the Dr. Spork Great who knows how to deal with all the evil that?s out there and can afford to criticize US government for he is not responsible for protecting this country and therefore his lunatic ideas won?t hurt anyone.

  88. That's odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the onion piece:
    "According to top Bush Administration officials, if the measure is passed by the U.N. --and possibly if it is not--the U.S. would immediately launch invasions of Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba; establish oil-drilling operations in Siberia; install nuclear-missile silos in Mongolia along the Chinese border; make English the official language of the planet;"

    I would have thought that Bush would want to make American the official language of the planet.

  89. Don't forget.... by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 2
    Offices in Australia.

    As for the question "how far..?":
    As far as your computer room where you're running the software, if they wanted (assuming you live in the US).

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  90. +5, Interesting? poor /. *sigh* by Doctor+O · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It could be argued that the internet, since it recognizes no geographical boundaries, and exists in its own "cyber-space" could have its own soveriegnty.

    This is complete BS. There is no such thing as "cyber-space", at least where laws are concerned. All the wires and routers, all servers and everyone using the Internet (not to be confused with one of its services called WWW) are *very* real - they're located in the real world.

    When you surf the 'Net, you aren't going someplace else, you're still sitting in front of your screen. When you watch pr0n, you don't use cyber-tissues. When you host MP3s via your DSL line and are located in a country which considers this breaking *local* copyright law, the jurisdiction won't probably see why the files should reside in some higher sphere, because they're right on your hard disk which can be located quite easily unless you decide to shove it up your ass to hide it away from curious investigators. (You might be disappointed though, that the X-Ray camera won't decide not to show the drive for your cyber-space theory either.)

    Seriously, get real. Most of those people whining for "Internet jurisdiction" simply want to break some law or another, mostly copyright. They should rather spend their time using their rights to tell their representatives why the current copyright laws simply won't be able to withstand the possibility to copy anything, anytime. A lot of good thoughts on how a copyright law could feed the artists while making access to digital assets simple and inexpensive already exist. They're even discussed here on a regular basis, and if this isn't enough, Google is your friend (tm).

    --
    Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  91. Outcome is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should the US somehow succeed in shutting down kazaa (which I doubt will happen), users will immediately jump on alternatives such as gnutella. With dozens of gnutella projects, most of which are open source, developed all over the world, the difficulty of shutting that down is much worse. Most of these projects have no owner or backing corporation. Much of the development happens outside the US and arguably there are many perfectly legal applications of gnutella.

    Should they somehow succeed (imho this would require a radical change in international copyright), no doubt alternative techniques such as freenet which have anonimity and encryption built in will be ready to takeover. It's an arms race and the media companies are going to lose it no matter what. It's going to cost them billions before they realize they are burning money. They'll invest in fundamentally flawed technology like drm enforcement techniques, spent lots of money on alienating end users, lose lots of money on crippled cds that people just won't buy.

    Just last week, some media company was opening up its servers for one day. For one day anyone could download copyrighted music for free. WTF! They must be really out of touch with reality if they resort to that sort of thing.

  92. It is an established principle of the US that we . by Tom_Yardley · · Score: 1

    ... go after only the people who attack us first. Oh, wait, . . . those who attack us first and those our leaders decide might attack us first based on stuff too secret to let us see.

  93. there was that idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was this neat idea about a "world court", but, as i remember, the ones who were lobbying fiercly against it, were the americans themselves... finally, the world gave up, and there's no such court now...

    well, you know what they say: everything has two sides. they'll have to accept that there's other countries with different legislation. simple as that.

    marillchen

  94. How far does the long arm of US...reach by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1
    How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?

    Unfortunately for the ROTW, no one is really safe. You see, American hypocrisy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Foreign Policy works something like this: we want citizens and leaders of other nations to be held accountable to a World Court, yet we hold ourselves above them (example: America was found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism for our actions in Nicaragua). And after all, if you support peer-to-peer networks you obviously support terrorism. Because the terrorists are jealous of our freedoms, especially our freedom to disrupt peer-to-peer networks.

    I do hope that a lot of people are archiving history as it happens; some day the children will have to be taught about the perils of fascism.

    --
    "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
    -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
  95. to what extent? indefinitely by grimani · · Score: 1

    we can bomb every other sovereign state with impunity, invade and remove foreign leaders at will.

    what's a pesky border in comparison?

  96. Fool proof plan to kill RIAA & DMCA by ahaile · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Get a list of all teenage kids of congress members
    2. Figure out if any of these kids have traded music on-line
    3. Send the evidence to RIAA, the Justice Department, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.
    4. Sit back and watch the fun

    How many "tough on drugs" senators have flipped when -- whoops! -- a cop finds half a joint in Susie's back seat? Anyone here know if the Bush daughters have any "stolen" mp3s? Wouldn't that be a headline.
  97. Even the Uzi has legitimate uses by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    One thing, that I don't necessarily agree with, that people often site as their reason to want a certain kind of gun is nostalgia. Every member of the Israeli military learns to use an Uzi, I believe it is the first gun they hold in basic. Wanting to have a reminder of what was a scary/important/formative... time in your life is a perfectly valid reason to own one, even if you never intend to shoot it again...

    Maybe not the best example, but I feel it does illustrate that technology is not bad, it is people who are...

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  98. when you say "non" you start having accidents by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    boom!

    In the 1970's the British government blew up a Dublin bar IRA style to try and garner support away from the republican movement.

    I expect the lessons were not missed.

    The French seek a third way around Saddam and suddenly a "terrorist" attack against the French.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:when you say "non" you start having accidents by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      you mean... bush ordered to bomb our tankers?... gee
      z...

    2. Re:when you say "non" you start having accidents by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

      French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the probe "will find out exactly what happened" and stressed that "no possibility is ruled out".

      That includes allied coercion.

      It wouldn't be the first time. I don't know why you sound surprised. The Americans are a govt. that imported and sold cocaine to finance covert arms purchases. Remember?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  99. We had it on our dad's PC... by wirefarm · · Score: 2

    But the PC was all like Beep beep beep beep beep...
    I was *really* good source code, but then we had to write it again and it wasnt as good.
    It was really a ... ...
    Bummer.

    Cheers,
    Jim

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  100. This is great by greymond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope we (america) gets there hands slapped for this. Even though this is a technology issue - it's still a perfect example of how we push "our" views onto other countries.

    I'm almost tempted to go off here about several topics, but I don't want to be a flamebaiter, so i'll end it this way.

    Kazza doesn't physically exist in the US. It wasn't made in the US. If the US didn't want it being used they would block it similar to how China blocks some foreign sites. There is no good reason trying to hold a foreign countries product against our own copyright law.

  101. World at large, take heed by 1029 · · Score: 1

    I love all these wanna-be rightous posts about America being some evil, no-good, sell out, giant corporation, that I even saw compared with the Nazis. Fine, all well and good. Yep, America does indeed have its problems, and reaches too far sometimes (we'll not get into what I think is too far and what isn't). But for all you punk ass little fools crying foul in this little forum, why not stop blaming us when bad shit happens in your country...

    Take your own damned advice, stand up to your government. Let them know that you think "Fuck America and its over-reaching power. Next time Bush tells you to prosecute some kid on our soil, tell him to shove it." But don't blame me when your poloticians crumble. I didn't vote for the fucker (Bush or your Leaders), and I do what I can to set things straight on my side, but short of millitary takeovers of your land it is ultimatly up to you to keep things straight on your end.

    See, by the very fact that America can threaten your country with trade halts it shows the world that your poloticians are just as corrupt as America's. So go shove your rightous indignation. In a hundred years time America will either be a distant fucking memory of a facist land smacked down by the rest of the world, or we in America will own your fucking soul. Really the choice is up to you, but if it is the former, are you going to learn from our mistakes or is the EU or UN or some other organization just going to take Americas place as the bully of the world?

    The way I've seen people flock to America for jobs and that capitalism that everyone here seems to "hate" I can't help but think that one bully will just replace the other, and all you fools on the other side of the pond will be pushing the new breed of Americans around, pretending that you are far more morally rightous than me, the lowly dirtbag US citizen that you have now become.

    --
    - I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
  102. The power of the Roman Empire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power of the New Roman Empire tries to
    embrace earth and heaven. It might be
    interesting to bet how long it will take until
    the New Roman Empire equals the state of the
    'real one(R)'

    "Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?"

  103. Quit redefining "poor"... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quit redefining "poor"... use the system header file instead. Thanks.

    #ifndef __POOR_H__
    #define __POOR_H__ 1

    #define WEEKS_PER_YEAR 52
    #define WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK 40
    #define MINIMUM_WAGE 5.15

    #define IS_POOR(yearly_income) \
    ((yearly_income (MINIMUM_WAGE * \
    WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK * WEEKS_PER_YEAR) ? 1 : 0)

    #endif /* __POOR_H__ */

    You want to define certain people as poor? You have three manifest constants to work with. All three of them can only be changed with the approval of standards committees. Knock yourself out.

    Notice: Cranking up any of these values to crank up income for the bottom rung is fine... but nothing you do will make them definitionally "poor"... the only thing that can do that is them not working full time.

    FWIW: Most wealthy Libertarians, just like most wealthy Democrats or wealthy Republicans, etc., are all for bribing less well-off people to not steal their stuff. The various political parties just disagree as to what form the bribes should take.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Quit redefining "poor"... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's nice Terry, but being able to write C code doesn't disqualify you from being a son of a bitch.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:Quit redefining "poor"... by tlambert · · Score: 2

      "That's nice Terry, but being able to write C code doesn't disqualify you from being a son of a bitch."

      And pretending that poverty isn't something all political parties define one way or another in order to achieve their goals doesn't make it any less true.

      | poverty: 1 a : the state of one who lacks
      | a usual or socially acceptable amount of
      | money or material possessions

      If it can be defined into existance, it can be defined away.

      -- Terry

  104. RIAA's *real* problem... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    RIAA's *real* problem is going to be that none of these computers have static IP addresses, because the U.S. has hogged the IPv4 space, and isn't very interested in switching over to IPv6 until it can decrupt everything in real time.

    Makes them really hard to block at the routers, without blocking everything. 8-).

    -- Terry

  105. it DOES turn people off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, they are all for free speech and stuff... until they hear that at the heart of the matter is not speech at all, but mp3-sharing. Or, at least, for the vast majority of "I-want-my-napster/audiogalaxy/kazaa"-screaming kids that's where it's at. Sure, people wouldn't be in favor of that anyway, but if they get the impression of beeing decieved by little dirty greedy whiners they are all the more against it.

  106. since you talk about angry foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Care to explain what you mean by this sentence:


    > They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to.


    Why should they not be able to force you to agree to some sort of compromise ? The USA routinely pressures others to agree to stuff that's not in their best interest. Or, on the other hand, it may actualy be in their best interest to not mess with the US of A. So, why shouldn't others be able to do a little of that ? Because it would be you on the recieving end ?


    Apart from this little asymetry I'd like to add that I find it completely normal, healthy and inevitable that peaceful nations agree on things that may be only in their second best interest, just for the sake of cooperation (and stuff). (Which, in the same circular way as above, makes it their best interest but let's ignore that because it makes discussion so tedious ;-).

    1. Re:since you talk about angry foreigners... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Um, force how? If they want to apply economic pressure to us to do something, that's completely fair. Compromising is fine. When the US signed all it's current economic treaties, none of them were under military duress. (I say that with confidence, but if you'd like to dispute that, please do.) If we threaten to disrupt trade in order to secure an agreement, well... that's our right. Please describe the type of pressure we've used. I wouldn't know about it.

      I'm discussing military force. The UK could not (and would not) say "Give us Most Favored Nation trade status, or we'll go to war with you." Even if we did not have such a substantial military, the rest of the world would come to our aid.

      Anyway. I don't believe that my views are asymmetrical. I'm not a nationalist. "All men were created equal" applies to non-Americans just the same. The circular definition of "in our best interest" is essential. Compromise is often in our best interest.

      So, if you're a furrinner, and you're angry at me... well, you've assumed something.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  107. Re:How long before the first Internet-provoked war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he's not particularly dark-skinned, and he has in the past invaded several other countries and has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. I think we have reasons to be more than a little alarmed about him.

  108. What Kazaa's doing is illegal by geekee · · Score: 1

    What Kazaa does isn't legal. They make money from advertising. Advertisers pay them because lots of people use Kazaa. Most Kazaa users are trading illegal copyrighted material. Therefore, Kazaa is profiting from illegal activity. What they do is therefore illegal. They either need to work out a system whereby the copyright holders get a percentage of the take (which will never happen) or expect to be put out of business.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:What Kazaa's doing is illegal by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      By the same logic...

      Ford makes money by selling cars. People buy the Ford Mustang because it is a fast car. Most people who buy fast cars exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. Ford is profiting from illegal activity and should be put out of business.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    2. Re:What Kazaa's doing is illegal by geekee · · Score: 1

      The flaw with your analogy is that no one is losing money because of the action of the speeders. The violations you are referring to are criminal violations, and it's up to the govt. to determine whether or not Ford bears some responsibility for the action of the product user. People have tried to sue gun companies for deaths where their products were involved, but none have been successful, that I know of. In the case of Kazaa, they are profiting in a trade which can arguably show a direct correlation to loss of revenue by a copyright holder (which can be an individual like Paul McCarntney, not just the RIAA) due to illegal activity from their product. The same arguement was used to shut down Napster.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    3. Re:What Kazaa's doing is illegal by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Americans are loosing money in the action os speeders. The taxpayers of the US indirectly pay a hell of a lot of money to quench our thirst for oil, and when you are speeding you use a lot more gas.

      You might say this argument is weak, but I am going to say the same of yours:
      Nobody can prove that Kazaa is costing copyright holders any money. Who is to say that any of the pirates want the music badly enough to pay for it? The RIAA likes to blame low profits on P2P, but there is no evidence that is the cause (and plenty of evidence that it could be other things...)

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    4. Re:What Kazaa's doing is illegal by geekee · · Score: 1

      You also could argue that a shoplifter who stole a cd from a store only caused a minimal loss because the cd media costs under a dollar to produce, and he wouldn't have bought it anyway. The arguement that the pirates wouldn't have bought any of the music anyway is very weak and won't hold up in court. As far as speeders costing taxpayers money, it can be argued that your fine for speeding pays that bill, even though I don't think your arguement is statistically significant. SUV drivers who obey the speed limit burn more oil than sports car drivers who break the speed limit.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  109. It all has to go by puggsincyberspace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to the article and the US laws anything that contributes to Copyright violations intentionally or un-intentionally should be stopped. CD-Rom burners and DVD burners, contribute to Copyright violations but I don't see them stopping the production of them (could it be that Sony is one of the biggest manufacturer). If we follow the line down then the whole of the internet must go as it also contributes to Copyright violations and if we didn't have the internet then we wouldn't have file sharing and then the problem will go away. The true fact is that RIAA wants to shut down anything it cant make money from, it's got nothing to do with artists or copyright, it's all about money. If they were smart enough they would work out how to make money from it and all the huu harr would stop. One way I could think of is to let people send in a small amount of money for each song they have on a CD and for return they send out a holographic stick with serial number embedded in it and you stick it to the CD and then that CD is legal. They get their money and you get a CD that you actually want.

    --
    Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
  110. Re:It is an established principle of the US that w by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

    Have you noticed alot of people's opposition to bombing Iraq? There's not a clear-cut reason why we should and the Pres is being so hush hush about it, it's hard (if not impossible) to drum up public support. I saw a girl 10 minutes ago with a 'No War in Iraq' shirt on, and I smiled to myself, realizing there must be some kind of tangible public opposition for a shirt like that to appear.

  111. Canadian Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Write your MP and MLA and tell them that you support trade sanctions against the US until they change their foreign policy.

    They may dwarf us in population, but see how tough they are if we stop selling them water and electricity.

  112. What A Wonderful Idea -- You fucking morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's a great idea, then you've given them a reason for drm and cpu id's

    what'st hat your cpu id becomes your SS# and it is used to track you and all your actions so that you can pay INTERNET TAX TO PLAY IN INTERNET LAND

    jesus fucking christ you peple are stupid haven't you seen what gov't involvement in ALMOST EVERYTHING IS A ****VERY FUCKING BAD IDEA****

  113. You forgot one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarians won't tax your incomes anymore. You will be free to spend all your take home pay. Check out http://www.theft-by-deception.com

  114. Denmark does in fact extradite citizens ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cases where Denmark won't, is when the penalty for the crime potentially could mean a death-sentence.

    1. Re:Denmark does in fact extradite citizens ... by thskyt · · Score: 1

      Does this apply to Danish citizens as well?

      As far as I understood the law papers and discussion in the parliament, Danish citizens (native danes) are only extradited if the penalty in Denmark would be more than 12 months, and in the requesting country less than 3 years.

  115. dutchmen extradited for shoplifting by wdebruij · · Score: 1

    As a dutch resident I can remember a recent story where a dutch family was extradited to the US for shoplifting... although this is not civil law it still raised some eyebrows over here. Perhaps we should all become residents of the principality of sealand, I guess Bush has no idea where that is ;-)

  116. The source of the disagreement, perhaps by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1
    I really don't want to get into an argument where you attempt to prove to me your ability to download the latest Eninem album should be a federally protected right


    I think that a very small number of people believe that downloading Eminim's album is protected, but the tool can be used for much more than that.

    Let's use the war analogy... Kill the enemy (copyrighted material sharing) but civilian (indie bands, anything else that is not copyrighted) casualties are unaceptable.

    The part about the civilian casualties is why I don't want to see Kazaa (P2P in general, because we know that when one P2P goes away, everyone just goes to the next one) get blocked.
    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  117. Why only kazaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK, RIAA should shut down pop3, imap, http and ftp services, aah, let's not forget irc and instant messengers, as they all can be used to pirate their m4d-l33t movies, the only reason we breath.

    why do invent new technlogy? 'for the movies' aparently.

    next time, elect a decent president.
    ie: someone who isn't completely fucking ignorant.

    i'm proud i'm not american.

  118. What KaZaA can do by Scarblac · · Score: 2

    On the front page of their site, have users select which country they're from. Deny access to everyone who selects "United States". There, they've complied with US law.

    Of course, users could lie - but that's a DMCA violation (circumventing a technology used to protect copyrights) and obvious cracking attempt, how could Kazaa ever be held responsible for that? :-).

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  119. Re:How long before the first Internet-provoked war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he's not particularly dark-skinned, and he has in the past invaded several other countries and has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.

    So why does the US want to go after this individual? The US has frequently considered such people to be good friends who get dinner invites from the President.

  120. Executive Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whelp, it certainly is a big confusing world. So I'll summarize it for Americans... 4Gs, in this order.

    God, Grub, Guns, Gold...

    I'd like to summarize with the "evil" C-word
    Constitution. An excellent opportunity to turn off that magic television set and start reading again.

  121. Bah by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    More Americans need to get thier heads out of thier colons and tell just about everyone in DC to go fuck themselves with the unlubed end, and that goes double for the frothing lunatic with a 4-bit IQ (no names... give you a hint. He was almost done in by a pretzel). This country is supposed to be made up of Americans but it's just filled with cowards just like everyone else in the world.

  122. the rich kid by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
    Your analogy to the US as a rich kid giving handouts to classmates who need the money to survive isn't really correct. It may be manipulation, but not needed to survive and grow. I would even go so far as to say that many handouts prevent growth in the places that need it most.

    You are assuming that without some sort of foriegn aid, the given country could not survive or succeed. Aid from the US, EU, and elsewhere increase the financial resources slightly, financial aid is not a requirement for growth. These handouts will boost the riches of the upper and some of the middle classes, but the poor will remain poor, and will be in an even worse position because the economy will have left them behind.

    In most of South America (Columbia, Peru, Chile, Brasil, etc.) for example, if [unlikely] some billions of US$ were offered in some sort cash of handout to preserve the rainforests, it would not work. Sure a lot of city dwellers would benefit -- they would have jobs that paid a little more, but rural families would never see a benifit. The money would stay in the cities where the rich would continue to accumulate it, the city people would get trickle-down from government and business, urban people will slowly get trickle-down from the cities, but the businesses will continue to exploit the rural farmers, the people who have to slash-and-burn the rainforests to survive. As the cities and urban areas improve, the rural people still struggle to grow and harvest enough food to survive.

    The rich nations are better off offering schooling and sustainable infrastrucure to rural populations, rather than money. Many times we are offering un-sustainable gifts of cash and food, or building roads and pipelines that the people cannot maintain. While those are good for emergencies, I think they are terrible in the long run.

    Going way back to the original topic, going to international enforcement of a single country's law over the Internet is really a poor use of resources.

    frob.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  123. Re:How long before the first Internet-provoked war by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    More than that--nobody has invaded more countries or killed more people with weapons of mass destruction than the United States. Our policy is so hypocritical that I feel ashamed every time I am forced to admit that I actually am an American.