Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Salon, Privacy, Pricedrops
Circumventing the upsell, but not all of it. Responding to the recent post about cable service a la carte, alta writes "I got a response from Jane Black (who wrote the original article) and she said slashdot jumped the gun. You can not pick and choose which channel you want. You can just choose to get basic limited and premium without getting the 2 steps in between. Here's the actual piece of law:
"Buy-through of other tiers prohibited - A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.Read it all here. Here's what Jane said:
'But please make sure you understand the rule (Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.) You can't just choose which channels you want. The new rule says that you can get basic (the network and cspan etc) plus HBO/Starz/Showtime *without* having to buy the standard package as well. If you want AMC, Lifetime, whatever, you still need to buy the whole package. Make sense?'If you still need it, you can find more about the law here. Just type 543 in the "Section" field. The citation is: Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Found at volume 47 of the US Code Section 543(b)(8)"
The Salon dilemma. A Slashdot post last week reported that Salon was in serious financial trouble, and had dropped its premium section and instituted giant ads. Salon has now moved to over-the-counter trading. "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business," says Salon's president and CEO in the story. Update: 11/26 00:42 GMT by J : One correction: Salon has not dropped its premium section.
Dole, or Hormel? MacAndrew writes "As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better." Salon has now published an article focusing on the critical political versus commercial speech aspect of the case. Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional."
Surely, someone's wallet will end up fat. In reaction to the recent story about provisions of the DMCA being used to prevent the posting of post-Thanksgiving sales prices from large retailers, Brian McWilliams writes "I finished up my story about FatWallet after you posted that link on Slashdot. Might help explain some stuff."
Well, we thought this here panopticon would be a nice idea ... McLuhanesque writes "DARPA has posted the architecture for their Total Information Awareness Systems , the uber-database that purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone, mix in some Human ID at a Distance technology, among other stuff, and profile ... well, just about everyone. More of their proposed fun and games are listed here." And Declan McCullagh writes: "Just posted the transcript of the Pentagon news briefing (worth a read) on Politech. Note this is on the TIA program, not 'eDNA.'
$10,000 is nothing to sneeze at. The idea of buying code into the world of Free software (aka code Ransom, as mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago) is drawing interest. waxed writes "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author, Maarten Hekkelman, who has ceased development of it and re-release it under a BSD-style license. Donations may be made via PayPal or cheque."
This kind of crap is exactly what it would take to make me cancel my account with my ISP and do everything by paper again. Big step backwards. Yeah, I know, they have all the dirt by other channels anyway, but why make it easy?
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
See also the Chilling Effects Weather Report: Bargain Shoppers Chilled by Retailers' DMCA Threats, where we dissect the DMCA safe harbor provision and potential legal claims and responses.
-- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain
Step 1: Write a bunch of articles you can find anywhere else.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Bankrupcy!
They just allow you to get to the premium content if you click through some long Mercedes Benz ad. On a side note, this news is now 4 days old.
$10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper. Maybe the money would be better spent on other projects?
[insert] token reference to donating money to EFF here [/insert]
just a thought...
Check out Byte's current situation.
While someone has every right to get upset at the sheer volume of political mail received around election time (electronic or otherwise), EFF and the Courts are correct. Political discussion is at the heart of the Constitution and it will be a cold day in hell before there is a successful law to stop it.
As for Elizabeth Dole's decision to use email for communication to her (future) constituents, when there is so much anger over SPAM (eventhough it technically isn't SPAM), is another matter. If I were her political consultant I would have advised against it.
They can start by filling out this - Test - and making the results be available for all. I'm sure many of us would be surprised at the results of some of our lawmakers. :-)
Sex - Find It
This is slander! This is not possible!!1! I humbly submit to this woman that she needs to get her facts straight because the strict Slashdot editorial process would eliminate any chance of that... happening... and... uh... er...
People, even though I'm called a bit "cruel" or "callous" by others, I strongly believe in Darwinism in all aspects of life.
Whether one's talking about social situations or, as in this case, Web site profit margins, Darwin always applies. I don't feel that people deserve handouts, Salon.com included. They already have a subscription model for their site, yet they still cannot seem to move into the black from the red.
There once was a small site called Slashdot where all kinds of computer fanatics would propagate to every morning at work. It was also very popular with computer science majors at colleges. It began to have its own atmosphere, and many inside jokes were traded and laughed at amongst members. Essentially, Slashdot became a very valuable entity, and as such, other profit-making companies became interested in it. One day, a software company made an offer to Rob Malda that he couldn't refuse.
The rest is history, people. Rob and Co. are doing great now and control the site in every aspect, while still bringing home nearly six figure salaries each fiscal year.
And Slashdot isn't the only successful site. Many other sites, such as Yahoo!, make a ton of profit because they're smart and employ low-cost solutions (FreeBSD on all servers, which means they only pay for hardware and bandwidth). This is the future. Darwin is alive and breathing in all aspects, both in nature and on the World Wide Web.
While I admire donations, I say this to Salon: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (merge with another company) or go home (auction away your assets and hope to not lose everything).
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better."
Great. Now the buisnesses are supposed to regulate the government, I suppose. Someone should call her ISP.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
The first rule of Fatwallet is you DO NOT talk about Fatwallet.
Like, for example, if I were to tell you that on Fatwallet, you can read that on Friday Wal-Mart is having a sale on OH MY GOD, WHAT'S THAT MECH DOING HERE, IT'S GONNA CR...ARRRGH!
(DMCA robot lawyer voice): ALL YOUR POST-HOLIDAY SALE PRICE ARE COPYRIGHT TO US, BARGAIN HUNTER DIE NOW, HA HA HA
My nagging problem with TIA is not that they want to be efficient about analyzing the info they have but that it implies an unholy collaberation between the military and, well, everyone.
My question: Did I miss some law change that requires all banks, credit-card processors, ISPs, video rental stores, libraries, stores, etc. to funnel all their transaction and customer information to the military?
The scope and implications of this project terrify me but I want to be rational as well. Without data, all the analytical capability in the world is useless.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I dunno about this guy. He seems annoyed that he got some email he wasn't expecting. If Dole or someone sends me email, I would just block their address.
/etc/mail/access and added the from address, along with a custom message saying "550..please unsubscribe". No problem.
What gets me most about the (real) spammers is, they LIE about their address, their web pages, their names, everything. They go out of their way to NOT honor people's requests.
Recently I started receiving some leftist political newsletter. I don't know how exactly I got on the list (I think my address was pulled from a Cc: list that had me in it). I didn't sue anybody, I just edited
Let's worry more about the spammers who hide their identities and send mail through korean servers, etc. Yeah it's a fine line, but I think mass-mailing voters with your (noncommercial) campaign message is acceptable, provided you don't lie about your address or identity, or otherwise interfere with my ability to block you, and follow other guidelines like honoring remove requests, and not sending more than one message a month, etc.
What would be next? Deciding that personal speech is less protected than commercial speech? Distinguishing between different kinds of commercial speech, with some more protected than others? I shudder to think of where this could lead.
Any spam law that covers political speech is just as constitutional (or unconstitutional) as it would be if it only covers commercial speech. The right to free speech does NOT include a "right to an audience", nor a "right to be published". You are allowed to speak, but you can't force me to listen. You can mail me a leaflet, but you can't force me to pay the postage. You're not allowed to enter my home to speak to me without my permission; similarly an anti-spam law (if it is properly written) doesn't prevent you from speaking, but only prevents you from making me pay for it.
Hey man, I agree with you about all of this, and there have been days recently with all of the malarky passing into law where I almost felt the urge to chuck it all - and live like it was 1975 - paper and all. But by the time they manage to get this huge bureacratic behometh to do this type of dirty work we could very likely see a massive decentralized ad-hoc and an emerging phenomona called Smart Mobs and anonymous surfing provided by Hacktivismo, censorship-free and anonymous information via Freenet, open spectrum and finally perhaps anonymous digital cash from Yodel Bank.
Planet P - Liberation With Technology.
www.enthea.org
Yeah, I'm still not sure how they are playing the DMCA or even copyright card despite reading amany articles on this.
IANAL of course. But my confusion stems from knowing a little about some past coypright cases.
See, if the Wal-Mart spokesman Mr. Williams actually did say to the extent 'its sales circulars consist of a "compilation of prices" and that the data contained therein "is very much copyrightable"', and that's an official stance, that's sorta a shot in the foot for them. Compilations are copyrightable if the compilation extends some creativity in the nature of the compilation. Most compilations are copyrighted because the original works included are still under copyright; not because of the nature of the compilation unless there was some special layout. Where do I get this from? The Feist vs. Rural Telephone case. It showed that white pages in phone books are facts which are not copyrightable.
Other case law extends this further, again involving telephone directories. Hell, yellow pages in one circuit is not considered copyrightable. Addresses, phone numbers, business descriptions are not. So how can a price by copyrightable?
It's sorta odd--the DMCA argument is being used to squash a consumer pricing site but a side reason being that their leak tips off their competitors so that they can adjust prices. Uhh, they should be more worried about the leaks--in all honesty, if it's getting out to regular web sites, if you have a spy section in a company (which many companies do), you're going to know the prices anyways.
Who wants to bet at least one of these companies screams "See! The leaks to the internet caused us to lose millions in sales. That's why our holiday season sales are down!" to their Congressman.
//rant
So what if it's free speech? It's not free as in beer - and that is exactly the problem here.
You can say whatever the you want, political or otherwise, but I'll be damned if I'll roll over and happily pay for it! It's my bandwidth, my system resources, MY MONEY.
Be my guest and snail mail me your propaganda - at your own cost. But don't you dare try to hide behind the free/political speech shield when all you want to do is spread your propaganda on my dime. (I do realize that it wasn't "you" who sent said messages)
By your reasoning I should be able to say to NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc, that I want 10minutes of airtime to express my political views. Do you really think they'd give it to me for free? Didn't think so. Someone has to pay. Why should *I* pay for someone else's message?
As for your assertion that is isn't really spam:
From MAPS: ( http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html )
An electronic message is "spam" IF:
(1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND
(2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND
(3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.
Political E-Mail meets #1 no problem. #2 is no problem either - unless I asked for it, don't send it! Finally, #3, getting someone I don't support elected is absolutely in their interest more than mine.
The law is an easy one. It need not strangle free speech, political discussion or otherwise. Simply make bulk E-Mailing to address, who have not specifically (and verifiably) opted into such mailing, prohibited - regardless of content.
//end rant
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
This was a major contributing fact in not getting enough warning in advance to stop September 11th.
Now they want everything in the USA, multiplying the effect by an order of magnitude or so. Multipying it in the wrong direction.
Imagine trying to find the one drop of pure water, while drinking with a straw, from a sewer pipe in Manhattan. Not a pretty picture.
This with an agency office with a research budget of a few million dollars. Obviously Poindexter is seeing this as a growth industry.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Here are some choice excerpts from that Pentagon briefing on TIA, for the lazy, with the bullshit cut out. Obviously, you can read the original if you prefer.
... What are the privacy issues ... ?
Q:
Aldridge: There are no privacy issues.
Q: Can you run over the transactions again? It sounds like every time I would enter or a citizen would enter a credit card, any banking transaction, any medical -- I go see my doctor, any prescription, all of those things become part of this database -- right? -- hypothetically?
Aldridge: Hypothetically they would...
Q: Every time they use a telephone, that call enters the database. And if it is voice recognition, for example, then that enters the database, hypothetically, right?
Aldridge: Hypothetically, yes.
When this goes into effect, the credit cards go. The checkbook goes. The ATM card goes. No more video rentals. The cellphone goes. Everything I e-mail out will be encrypted, though I expect that I'll use e-mail a lot less.
Sucks to live in a Republican America.
-Waldo Jaquith
But get this, the city I live near, Wilmington, wants all residents to register their guns. The "conservatives" are screaming against it.
So, I can buy a gun anonymously (between private individuals) in Delaware legally, not have to report it, and have the full support of the same congressional persons that voted for this homeland defense bill. But if I buy an issue of 2600 with my credit card, I'll be put on someone's list...
Now, let's not let this degenerate to a flame about 2nd ammendment crap. I'm pointing out hypocracy here, not making a stand for mandatory gun registration... I'm making a stand against mandatory kleenex registration.
Do you really think that out of 250 million people the feds will care that you took $90 out of the ATM or rented Ishtar? Get real.
.220 ammunition about three months ago, right before the sniper shootings with .220 ammunition started right here in Virginia. They might cross-reference that with my recent purchase of several books on the Muslim faith, and determine that I fit their model of the sniper. I, obviously, am not the sniper (of course, two excellent suspects are in custody now), but I would have had a hell of an experience trying to prove that to the FBI. This database would make exactly that sort of tracking not just possible, but the standard.
No, but they might care that I purchase ammunition. (I target shoot.) They might have found it real interesting that I purchased
You're going to lead one hell of a life without a checkbook or cellphone.
I really don't think it will be a problem. You'll be surprised to note that billions of humans managed to survive for untold centuries without either of these things. You'll no doubt be shocked -- shocked -- that billions continue to function without these things. Why, did you know that in America today, there are still millions of people without cellular phones! It's boggling, I know!
Is using a land line phone any more secure? Didn't think so.
Much, much more secure. The use of a cellphone allows my location to be tracked. Currently, it can be tracked within a few miles. Soon, by a new FCC regulation ostensibly for E911 purposes, my location will be tracked within a few yards. My phone need not even be in use -- all of my movements can be tracked and databased, such that a permanent record of my every movement can be established. With a landline...um...not so much.
Christ, McFly, you do think before you reply, don't you? Looking at your posting history, though, it appears that I've answered my own question.
-Waldo Jaquith
Senator John Ashcroft - evidently no relation to the daemon obsessed (or is that possessed?) Attorney General of the same name.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.
The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.
Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.
I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.
Enjoy! HTH.
P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.
If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.
Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.
Of course, if you are using a cordless phone, it may be more difficult for them to find your exact location...that is, unless you ever need to use the base to recharge the phone.
Just a thought.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Before the Fatwallet story this week, I had never heard of them, but now I'll probably visit the site regularly. That kind of publicity is golden, especially on the net where gaining unique visitors is so competitive. Now that wired has an article, Fatwallet must be getting tons of hits. Good for them. There's no such thing as bad publicity.