Slashdot Mirror
Crossplatform iTunes Sharing and Trading
An anonymous reader writes "As reported on Cnet
and others, an open source java iTunes client named ourTunes has been released under the GPL by a group of anonymous hackers. Unlike the Apple iTunes for Windows and Mac, ourTunes allows a user to queue up and save to disk the music shared by other users. Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products.'"
developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for any copyright infringement
The dam is just about to break.
... I started to feel like the good old days of the internet.
Remember when the internet was full of freedom?
In light of the recent court decision, will Apple still be able to use the DMCA to bully Sourceforge into taking down the software?
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/20/174 8226&tid=141&tid=108&tid=3&tid=218
Shouldn't that be "weTunes" in order to use the pronoun in the subjective case?
"It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal the food from artists' tables." - RIAA
There seems to be a handful of java DAAP clients that all look the same:
c ords: http://www.cdavies.org/applerecords.html
One2ohmygod: http://one2ohmygod.sourceforge.net/
jtunes4: http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtunes4/
AppleRe
and yet another called "Get It Together"
http://www.deleet.de/projekte/daap/
They all look the same but have varying degrees of functionality.
Why do people have to come up with so uncreative names? Apple has the nTunes thing going, take a couple of minutes and make up your own naming scheme.
Since Rendevous requires the machines to be on the same network, this sounds like it is just beating around the regular local network file sharing. I wouldn't think there would be too many legal issues involved here unless someone magically manages to get this working over the internet.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
That's hilarious. Although I'm opposed to all Satan programs that take away our Christmas, I might learn to like this one.
If you blog it...
Wow. Talk about demonising the wrong entity here. The DMCA isn't Apple's fault. Apple just did what they had to in order to keep the labels from shutting down the iTMS entirely. If you hate the DMCA, say so, but don't blame Apple for it. Apple != Congress.
This article has pretty much convinced me that the folks running p2pnet are only concerned about piracy -- as in committing it -- rather than having an intelligent discussion about the real issues here.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
The court ruling was not a blanket protection for anyone writing P2P software. The court ruled that in the case of the P2P clients they were shown, significant legitimate use prevented the creators from being held liable for copyright infringement. Read the fucking ruling before you make comments on it PLEASE.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
But this whole I-want-Apple-to-do-it-my-way thing is really confusing to me.
You can cry if you want to share or download your tunes in a different way. You can complain about the evil DRM software Apple uses in its proprietary format. You can moan about lack of options and the iTMS/iPod lock-down.
I just don't understand why everyone clicks the "Yes" on the user agreement. If you want it to work a different way, don't support it.
Seems like all these 'benevolent' iTMS hacks, reverse engineers and DRM stripping apps are getting held up in some sort of martyr-like light.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
??
From the ourTunes home page ( ourtunes.sf.net: )
1) What is ourTunes?
ourTunes is the continuation of several open source projects designed to allow you to browse and download from other people's iTunes Music Shares?
2) Is this a Peer to Peer (P2P) program? Aren't those things created by Satan to steal Christmas from Baby Jesus?
It's not "really" a peer-to-peer program, because it doesn't allow you the opportunity to share any files or music.
3) Why am I not seeing any hosts? Is the whole internet dead?
There probably aren't any people on your network sharing iTunes music. ourTunes only allows you to view connections within your networks "subnet" (often the building you are currently in, maybe a little bit more). If you are running ourTunes from home, I'm sorry to say but you'll probably be pretty disappointed. It's really only a viable program where there are lots of people living on a fast network with good taste in music (*cough* college campus *cough*).
It allows you to share with other people on the same network! OMG. nothing to see here.
Come on, please don't moderate me to oblivion.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You don't need Rendevous to use DAAP. Rendezvous makes it easy to find stuff on a local network, but all you have to do is point your DAAP client at the host sharing the music and you can play it. It's just http.
I just tried out the program at work, here and transfered some songs from our PC music server. works nice. Although, it doesn't resolve a local iTunes server properly. Oh well, it's not like you wanna download from yourself, per se....
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Isn't this just a slow version of iTunes pre-version 4.5 with MyTunes? I haven't downloaded it but i've been using myTunes to download music off of my school network for months. Its an amazing source of files(depending what network youre on).
Slartibartfast:"Is that your robot?"
Marvin:"No, I'm mine."
I don't see a problem with ourTunes... I mean, iTunes itself allows sharing within the local area network, ourTunes does the same thing, it doesn't extend beyond the current capabilities of iTunes (except it's actually more multiplatform).. So what's wrong with it? It looks to me as though it's just a way to let everyone utilize those features of iTunes, not just Mac/Winduz people.. Soooo.. Anyone that'd sue them over that is pretty messed up... Or maybe I just need to research this more... But I don't see anything wrong..
I have my music on an old G3 in the basement, and want to play it over the network from my powerbook.
As it stands, I can listen to what ever I click on, or in the default order - but no custom playlist or random order.
Again, DRM and 'copy-protection' annoys the casual user, without providing any return.
But there's a way you can enjoy free music downloads without getting into trouble. Listen to the legal music that many unsigned and independent artists provide as a way to promote themselves. Find out how in my article:
-
Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
If you downloaded such music instead of infringing copyright on the p2p networks, we'd make short work of the RIAA. You'd start listening to bands that aren't signed with RIAA labels, and the RIAA would have no cause to complain because no one's copyright is being infringed. The RIAA labels would wither away because no one is buying their music anymore, and a lot of deserving artists would get the exposure they deserve.Here's a page that I found out about just a couple days ago and haven't added to the article yet. etree offers a page of Bit Torrent Downloads, all of them TradeFriendly.
If you feel as I do that more people need to read my article, you can help by linking to it from your own website, your web log, or from message boards. Be sure to email the link to all your friends who use P2P!
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The 9th Circuit court ruling is that software developers *can* be held liable,
a) if their software did not have significant non-infringing uses, OR,
b) if the software developers are in a position of power or control over the specific infringing activity and have a right and ability to stop the infringing activity AND had knowledge of the specific infringing activity OR
c) the software developers provide material aid (such as providing computer servers) in commiting the software infringement and had knowledge of the specific infringing activity.
The 9th Circuit did not want to expand copyright law to include parties which merely produced technology with significant non-infringing uses, who had no way of preventing the piracy that did take place, and did not provide any material aid to any piracy once the piracy become known to them.
The decision (as a few others pointed out) did not give blanket immunity.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The recent court decision protecting Grokster from liability for its users doesn't protect all P2P systems. Grokster is protected because it doesn't maintain a central list of available resources (including copyright violations), and it doesn't lock out specific users, so it can't actually enforce restrictions on copyright. That's up to the users themselves. It's like the phone company, which isn't liable for callers threatening people with assault, blackmail, or engaging in conspiracy, or even copyright violation.
The decision backed decentralized P2P, power to the people, as a legitimate forum, even when illegitimate communication uses it. Now that people make broad, selfserving interpretations of that decision public, to protect their illegitimate systems, we'll see another lawsuit and decision showing that centralized systems like Napster are not protected. We can flirt with disaster by abusing the grey area, producing an overly broad decision the next time in a court not quite so committed to justice as in the Grokster decision.
--
make install -not war
http://sourceforge.net/users/whizziwig/
lead developer.
To run on Linux: .jar archive)
$ java -jar (name of
Of course, if you don't want to run in the terminal, you can create a launcher that does just that from the menu.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Songs that are legally purchased with iTMS and shared using Rendezvous (iTunes or other) wouldn't be able to be played by other people unless they were authorized.
Nobody has cracked the encryption to date. They have found ways to unencapsulate the file from being encrypted but unless your machine is authorized for the songs they are worthless. Copy the songs till your heart is content, you can't use the files. I believe this model will still enable iTunes sharing to continue the way it is.
I am actually very upset that the original way iTunes shared music was changed. You used to be able to give your friends your IP address and they could connect to your iTunes music (by default out of the box).. but then a TON of sites went up where you could register your IP address of your iTunes library and it would pull down your list of songs and have it searchable to use much like Napster. This obviously lasted long enough till the next incremental iTunes release came out and "fixed it" so sharing worked only on the local network.
What, you hate java apps because you don't know how to run them?
Stop being such a fucktard, it's like saying that computers don't work because you can't find the power button
Then iTunes comes out, providing EXACTLY that. But were the complainers happy? Nope, instead they stab Apple in the back and devise ways to get Apple's product without paying for it.
Way to show your appreciation folks!! Is it really any wonder why the likes of the RIAA wants to hunt you down??
Apps like this aren't motivated by free speech, this is all about free beer. I just wish some of you would be honest about that.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I've been thinking a lot about what a song is worth, and the only conclusion I can come to is ... nothing.
Before the birth of the recording industry, what did it cost to listen to a song? Nothing. It may cost something to go to an event, a concert or opera, but to hear a song being sung cost nothing. The singer sang, you listened, and it cost you nothing.
So the recording technology shows up, and the recording industry is built up. The recording industry exists solely for the purpose of transporting the song from the studio to my speakers. So all the trucks and equipment and so on incur costs, and that's what I pay for. But not for the songs themselves.
What's a metallica song worth? Nothing, I've already heard them all. Going to a Metallica concert might be worth 50 bucks. Maybe buying the bobblehead dolls and Metallica Pop Tarts is worth a few bucks. I can see a 5" plasic disc in a case with liner notes and photos having value. The music recorded on that disc, however does not.
To download off the internet, it's reasonable to expect to be compensated for bandwidth. But I can't see the songs themselves having any intrinsic value. A Van Gogh painting has value because there's only one of them. A photograph of one has nothing. Similarly, watching the artist perform has some value, but a snapshot of their performance (a song recording) doesn't.
I must be missing something, but I can't think of what. Music is worth nothing. Artists don't profit from "music", they profit from performances and mercahndizing. The only ones who profit selling "music" are middlemen and distributors who are increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, the service they provide may or may not have value, but the "music" itself does not.
A friend I chat with online is in a band, and they've been moderately successful, and opened for some fairly big artists and are completing their first album. He'll DCC the songs to anyone who'll listen to them. Why would he do this? Because they themselves have no value.
If you say that music has value, it makes no sense. Because according to the industry, all music has the same value. A song according to Apple is worth 99 cents. But music is subjective. I wouldnt pay 5 cents for a band I don't like, I might even pay more for one that I do - heck, I already have by spending 20 bucks for a disc with 10 songs on it.
Music is a personal expression, just like a thought or opinion. Thoughts have no monetary value.
Music has no monetary value, and just look at all the handwaving and idiocy that's occuring because of societies need to attach a price tag to everything.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
In windows and OS X you just click on the jar and it runs like it was an application, no command line needed.
.zip and unzip away.
As someone already said the command you want is:
"java -jar OT41.jar"
I have seen various settings for linux desktops to do the same thing.
The nice thing is this single 300k app works on any platform and has the full source inside of it. Rename the file to
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
Where are you going to get music? You can buy the CDs, you can download them from a Windows-based service, or you can download them with iTunes. That is, in reality, you don't have the kind of choice of contracts that you might get in a free market.
So, why are people rebelling and breaking their agreements? Because they feel that those agreements have been forced upon them and therefore feel they are not ethically bound by them (even if there is a small legal risk in doing so).
Not really. I happen to be one of those people that gets a paycheck before the artist (I do studio and live work - but for small local artists and at reasonable prices). There's so much great music that never gets heard because of distribution problems. Where is the open source micropayment system? Where's the plugins to media players that would help people find new music?
They may or may not exist, but they don't get front page attention on Slashdot. Instead we get something that if it catches on will be used to spread the latest UshLudicKast5 song across campuses, along with a whole bunch of people patting themselves on the back for their "freedom," which largely consists of taking away other people's freedom.
The artists I work with have the right to put whatever conditions they want on their music, or to sell that right to some corporation. Freedom is choosing whether or not to agree to those conditions, not disagreeing with them and taking anyway.
But oh look, I've already been labeled as a troll.
Limewire's DAAP implementation is actually working - you can share your downloaded files with other
people's iTunes on the local network.
I couldn't get ourTunes to even try and open the multicast socket, lets hope they get their act together sooner.
Don't go silently into that peaceful night
One of the tennets of freedom is the right for people to be able to decide how what they create should be used. Linus used that right to place Linux under the GPL, Theo uses that freedom to choose the BSD license. Just because you disagree with the license offered with a product does not give you the "freedom" to ignore the license and take the product anyway, nor is the fact that it's impossible to stop file-sharing make it "right." SCO obviously disagrees with the GPL, but how many people here support their claim that they have the "right" to Linux?
If you don't like the terms (be it CD, DRMed file, carved stone tablet), fine, don't buy it. I guarantee that if you choose to look around, there's talented musicians who aren't associated with any major music lable who would love you to listen to their recordings. Musicians' freedom includes choosing what terms they want to distribute their creations under, or selling that right to someone else. If you want to fight the system, respect them and seek out the alternatives, don't gloat about the gigabytes of commercial stuff that the latest product lets you aquire.
When the music was released, it was on CD's that you had to PAY for. Just because you are getting it from another person who is breaking the law does not mean its ok for you. Every time I build a windows PC for a friend, I make them buy a licence of xp. I have a corp license here for my work. I have a MSDN licence as well. I could use those. But you know what, that is stealing. I am depriving a company of money they should get for my use of their product. I dont care if its music, a car, a dildo. The fact is, If it is good enough to use, then its good enough to pay for. If that person wasn't illegally sharing the song, you would be forced to buy the CD to listen to that music. If it costs too much money as you say, they why dont you go without any music? I dont like the cost of milk at target, so I shop at meijer. I dont like the way walmart drives down the wages of people in my city, so I dont shop there. I dont agree with RIAA tactics, so I buy indie labels. This is the same as throwing a brick though a persons window because you dont like the same kind of car he drives. The fact is, if you had not downloaded that song for free, the only way for you to listen to it would be to buy it. Thus you are loosing them money. And saying you are sampling the song to see if it is worth it doesn't fly either. You can listen to the radio. You can even listen to samples of the songs on Itunes for FREE. The fact is that a buisness is making the music. They are paying for the artists to live to make the music. They also want money for their product. Music is no different then a car or milk. If you want their product, then pay for it. If you dont want it, dont use it.
Explain to me how coming down on PlayFair is misuse of a bad law. Putting Skylarov in jail and telling SourceForge to pull PlayFair or get sued are two completely different things.
/. UID posting GNAA comments more than once? They get banned to all hell too...but there are a lot more of them than there are of Hans, obviously. And if you can post again, the problem is fixed. It won't necessarily never happen again, but you can post now...)
The position I see you taking here is that any use whatsoever of a "bad" law is immoral, and I'm not sure how the heck that's defensible. But I'd love to hear it, if that's indeed what you're saying.
(Side note: do you ever see the same
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Socialism (basically what your argument comes down to) is inevitably unsuccessful when you introduce it to the flaws of humanity, and thus, is contrary to the principles of freedom this country was founded upon.
It is a given that some people work harder than others. Redistribution of wealth, the fundamental tenet of socialism, is inherantly unjust when those who produce goods and services are forced, through taxation, to subsidize those who will not.
Now I'm not going to say that Capitalism is flawless; we all know there are a lot of greedy people who lie and cheat their way into wealth. But the fact that some people have more wealth than others is not in itself proof of injustice.
In fact, the right of people to make a living however they choose to (as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights) is another pillar of this country's founding. Now I'm not saying that people are entitled to profit or success, don't misunderstand.
However in this case, musicians and software programmers are providing products that people want, and our economic system is designed to allow them to charge money for that product. Who are you or I to tell them how they should go about that?
"Why can't artists be sponsored freely by their fans and admirers? Do a concert if you're a musician. Sell your original artwork if you are a painter."
People can do all those things, and some do! But unless you are the musician, or the programmer (or whatever), that is not your choice to make. You do not decide how others should be allowed to sell/distribute their work. Your choice is whether or not to buy their product for what they are asking, end of story.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
In iTunes, you can change the default location that iTunes stores your music library. Set it to be ~/Sites/mymusic/ (or whatever you want to call it) as your music library folder in iTunes. Make sure iTunes preferences is set to copy new mp3s into your library. Then, turn on music streaming in iTunes. Finally, turn on Apache (one click in the sharing preferences.)
There you go. iTunes automatically copies and organizes new music on your machine into your Sites folder to make what basically amounts to a web site available to others on your network. People on your network can stream your music if they want via iTunes, and if they like it, they fire up their browser, go to your machine (http://1.2.3.4, by default it shows you the available folders as links) and dig down to find their download.
Easy. Why install software to do this kind of thing when the tool are already sitting there waiting to be used?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
A group of computer enthusiasts have begun a protest at the RIAA headquarters. Many of them have been seen doing "touchdown dances" and making obscene gestures towards the RIAA headquarters building.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
...
Oxygen bars, bottled water, tanning salons, parking stations...
Quality, convenience, features, gimmicks,
\Du"ress\, n. [OF. duresse, du?, hardship, severity, L. duritia, durities, fr. durus hard. See {Dure}.]
1. Hardship; constraint; pressure; imprisonment; restraint of liberty.
2. (Law) The state of compulsion or necessity in which a person is influenced, whether by the unlawful restrain of his liberty or by actual or threatened physical violence, to incur a civil liability or to commit an offense.
Signing a contract and then saying, "hey, I'll be inconvenienced if I have to hold up my end of the agreement!" is not the same as being forced under duress. Otherwise, we could all go and lease cars and then flip off the dealership! "I had no intention of paying tens of thousands of dollars to drive your car! I'll just motor around for free!" Rent apartments and squat! "Pay to live in your place? Your rent is so high it's unconscionable!"
Your benefit from agreeing to iTMS' terms of service is... drumroll please... the service of listening to music. If you want to hear the music performed by a star and distributed by a label, well you need to pay those involved in bringing it to you. Otherwise you are a thief.
All of this pseudo-Libertarian bullshit does a poor job of hiding the simple fact that you want things without paying for them. There is no unalienable right to use or take another's stuff simply because you want it.
eh.. how about "not in some way that presumes I am a crook."
This would also be my perferred way to pay for games.
Quite frankly, I am *pretty* sure that I, or my roommate, have paid for every game I have played that wasn't free.
Can I make the same assertion about music? Only kind of. Back in the day I did some napsterizing, but all of that was experimental. That is, I never napsterized anything that I wanted to "own" but I did do a lot of pick a song, check out the playlist of the user that had that song, download things that looked interesting. Can't say that I listened to much, if any of that more than once.
My roomate is into audio production and I am into writing. We naturally have these conversations about theme and content. So somewhere I think I *still* have nine versions of "little bunny foo foo." They are all *quite* terrible.
In its heyday Napster was very much the Star Trek experience of "computer, find me citations on (x)" querying, even if it was just music.
And honestly, I don't know that I have scrubbed out every reference to every song that was so fetched. I also think that several other people had access to the one computer as it was a house resource for brief period of extremity.
I say all this because if there had been a way to take the song tracks that I had already fetched and use them as a key to a payment system. I'd have done that on several occasions.
The way iTunes etc work, you pay your money and then you take your chance.
Given god like powers, or the money and title to make things different I'd do the following.
1) offer a large catalog of music (in fact every title I could, no exceptions) for free download at "good quality" (at least 128bit mp3, possibly more).
2) provide an app with a big drag-and-drop target (etc)(sort of a Big Red Button). When you take the free title and apply it to the app, it sends of a dime or two to The People Who Deserve Money(tm).
2a) the app would then let that computer download "really high bitrate" versions of that same song. Yes, it is only the one computer that is so authorized, and no, the good copies are not DRMed to be frozen to that box or anything like that. I wouldn't even bother to brand the high bitrate songs as comming from that computer.
2b) even the high-bitrate titles from 2a could be dropped onto the Big Red Button (on a different computer) to send money to those who deserve to be paid.
2c) using the Big Red Button will also get you money off credits for songs containing that version of that title on full CD purchases from the attached online store.
3) provide the old napster structure of search and share, and wire it up to automatically carry the free-quality songs freely.
4) treat the persions who pay for the very-high quality tracks not to spread them around, as the "good quality" tracks are available to everyone.
5) generally treat the customers as nominally honest and dignified humans.
5a) the very-high quality tracks are suitable for burning of CDs and the people are encouraged not to share these, and the napster-like applicaiton would be "resistent" to sharing these version, but they are not blocked from doing so by DRM or "playlist burn counts" etc.
So the p2p system removes my cost to distribute. The people who are "Causal Copiers" will be given all the music they want (a-la radio) and those who want more are going to get more by paying money. Marketing is automatic and quite rich, the whole "persons who have this song also have these" is implicit. Money is to be made at the low and high end. The "illicit feeling" is removed from the transaction. And most importantly, you know exactly what you are getting with every purchase, so quality must be good and there will be no "the rest of the album sucked" or "this wasn't what I thought it was" problems because there is no risk to the purchaser.
It could be done cheaply and it would work.
(Consider... Napster is the only reason that I ever bought Green Day... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I was actually arguing almost this exact same thing just last night, although I phrased it in a slightly different way. What I came down to is, essentially, art, as well as science, are inherantly not-for-profit ventures, in a model like that of "fine art" (painting, sculpture, etc). To attach a commodity-like value and artificial scarcity to a reproduction of any sort of information is just unnatural; it is effectively the PEOPLE who create that information that you should be paying for, as they are their time and effort is ultimate cost of creating it. (Materials cost, etc, aside).
That thought got me going a bit. Fine artists do art for the love of it, and just try to make a living from what they do. (Though of course, nobody would mind somehow getting rich off it either). Likewise, good scientists simply love science, and usually have to beg for funding to support their habit... er, research. People make intellectual pursuits because they want to: the only reason money becomes involved is because those people need it to live while they chase their intellectual dreams.
Cleaning toilets is something nobody wants to do, so they demand recompense for it. Same with hauling your garbage, flipping burgers, and any number of other thankless, boring jobs out there that will eventually be done by robots. Even things much more high-level like farming or business management - you can't exactly say "nobody wants to be a farmer" or "nobody wants to be a manager", but given the option of working a job like that or of being able to go on permanant paid vacation, most people would take the vacation.
Art and science, on the other hand, are different things. If we had robots and miracle replicators that took care of all our material needs, and nobody needed to work, money was obsolete and everybody was on permanant vacation, people would STILL do art and STILL do science strictly out of the love of what they do. These are not things that need monetary incentive to be done, because even if people did not need money, they would still be done anyway.
Thus I believe that in an ideal society, information would be left as it naturally tends to be - free, both as in speech and as in beer - and there would be a separate, strictly economic method of supporting artists just enough to allow people the leeway from paying work that they need to pursue the arts and sciences.
Information released into the public (you may still keep secrets of course) should not be constrained in any way. I don't think many people here will argue about that in principle; that information, as they say, "wants to be free". Rather, people will argue that that information has value and thus it's creators deserve compensation; or more specifically, that without economic support in their endevors no one will be able to pursue such intellectual things.
That I agree with, but I don't think the answer is in forcing artificial scarcity on information and making it behave like a physical product. Instead, to reap what in such an open system would be all of society's benefits, all of society should fund the initial endevors. Further profit could be made by GOOD artists and GOOD scientists from donations by people who appreciate their work, what you might call "honestly overpriced" reproductions (basically a cheap free gift with your donation), and commissions by wealthy benefactors who want an original piece (or original research) to their liking - just like in the fine arts. But people need the leeway to take a stab at it to begin with, and for that you need some sort of financial safety net.
Yes, I am essentially talking about some sort of government welfare (more commonly known to the intellectual crowd as "grants") to support the promotion of arts and sciences. Not a lot, mind you - nobody should be able to say "Hey, I could make a killing on free govt being an artist!" But it should be just enough to live a frugal life off of, or enough that you can take some time off your day job to pursue an interest in the arts and s
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."