Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: DRM, MPAA, ADSL

Slashback tonight with a response from Sony that removes the DRM 'rootkit' that has caused so much commotion, more hijinks from the MPAA, continued battery advancement, a followup to the UK broadband plan that had so many American's drooling, a catch in the recent Netflix settlement, and continued financial trouble for Silicon Graphics. Details on these stories and more, below.

It's not evil, but just in case... gmr2048 writes "Sony seems to have heard the commotion. They have offered a "Service Pack" to uninstall the DRM Rootkit. From the announcement: 'This Service Pack removes the cloaking technology component that has been recently discussed in a number of articles published regarding the XCP Technology used on SONY BMG content protected CDs. This component is not malicious and does not compromise security. However to alleviate any concerns that users may have about the program posing potential security vulnerabilities, this update has been released to enable users to remove this component from their computers.'"

Obviously they have never heard the adage about deep pockets. Dieppe writes "The MPAA is at it again. This time they're suing a grandfather who didn't cave into the $4,000 blackmail offer for movie downloads his grandson downloaded from iMesh. Four movies in total, and they already owned 3 out of 4 with the grandson deleting them soon after download. This time the MPAA wants "as much as $600,000" in damages. The article also claims that "illegal downloading" costs the industry $5.4 billion per year. Not sure where the MPAA comes up with these figures."

Longer life and no charge time. It doesn't come easy writes "A press release from A123Systems announces another new lithium-ion battery technology that promises to deliver unprecedented performance (according to them). The technology is suppose to deliver 10 times the cycle life and 5 times the power over conventional lithium technology, and only require 5 minutes to recharge to 90% capacity. This is certainly not the first breakthrough for lithium based batteries that has been promised. I wonder if there is a patent lawsuit in the making?"

Fast net connection, but only if you live nearby. conJunk writes "The BBC is running an article about the ADSL2+ that touted a 24MB/s net connection. It seems that this number in fact only holds up if you live across the street from the service provider."

Always read the fine print. JeremyWall writes "The recent Netflix class action settlement has a catch. While it is nice that the average subscriber will be upgraded for one month for free, if you read the fine print in section 4.2 of the long form [PDF Warning] of the settlement you find that you will be automatically charged for the higher subscription going forward. If you don't opt back out when you get their email, you are gonna get charged from then on. If you opt in for the settlement - check your email box regularly!"

Know when to hold and know when to fold. psykocrime writes "According to a recent press release SGI stock has been delisted by the New York Stock Exchange, as a result of falling below the NYSE's minimum share price." SGI, the former darling of the high-tech world, has been in trouble for a while, perhaps this is really the end.

33 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. Extortion by any other name. by Trigun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Leave it up to the MPAA to go after a grandfather. Where is the accountability for this group? Who do we direct our hatred at?

    Let's give the fuckers a name, and a face. No more of this MPAA, let people know who is behind it, which artists are in cahoots with this. Then we'll see how much we can really cost the industry.

  2. Silicon Graphics Saves the World by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Know when to hold and know when to fold. psykocrime writes "According to a recent press release SGI stock has been delisted by the New York Stock Exchange, as a result of falling below the NYSE's minimum share price." SGI, the former darling of the high-tech world, has been in trouble for a while, perhaps this is really the end.


    This is sad that SGI cannot stay afloat. I put them akin to Next in that they both make(made) quality machines that not many people want to buy. Notice I did not say need to buy. SGI has been a perfect fit for many a project of mine, but for varied reasons no one wants to take them.


    I guess this movie just isn't going to be accurate. One line I chuckled at during watching it was when it says, "Silicon Graphics Saves the World." Of course, this may be somewhat off...

  3. Not Sued For Downloading! by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to TechDirt the grandfather was sued for offering movies for download. Claiming that he isn't liable because his grandson was the one doing it, not him, is about as rediculous as saying that he's not liable if someone cracks their head open on faulty steps in his house because his grandson lives there not him. He owns the line, he's liable for any copyright infringement performed from that line. And no, it doesn't matter if it wasn't his son but some hackers who broke into his computer; if a burglar breaks into your house and puts his back out trying to lug away your safe, you're still liable. Much like copyright law in general, personal liability is insane and should be abolished.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Not Sued For Downloading! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, parents are rarely ever responsible for the torts of their children. If MPAA can't prove that the grandparent did it, in light of his claim that it was his grandchild who did it, then he will indeed get off the hook.

      There are indirect forms of copyright infringement, but they would still require that the grandchild be shown to be the direct infringer, and would require more of the grandfather than merely owning the telephone line. I'm afraid that your grasp of the law remains, as ever, poor.

      Additionally, while I would like to see significant reform of copyright law, I don't think that we're at a point where it makes sense to abolish it.

      --
      -- 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.
    2. Re:Not Sued For Downloading! by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Commercial use.. ya know, what copyright was made for.. to encourage the creation of works by providing to authors for limited times the exclusive right to profit from them. In my opinion, copyright laws should be completely rewritten to declare clearly and entirely that if you are not selling then you are not infringing. None of this bullshit about lot revenue. None of these arguments about how much money you are "saving" by getting a copy off your friend instead of going to a store. And definitely none of this insanity about circumventing copy protection.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Not Sued For Downloading! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here, here. No one should be allowed to make money from someone else's work, but copying a CD for a friend should be just fine.

      Note that Napster would still have been shut down, since they were profiting (and promoting themselves as facilitators!) from the blatant distribution of copyrighted works. Making a mix tape for a high-school crush should not be illegal. Taping South Park and giving it to a friend should not be illegal. Playing someone's song on an Acura commercial? Yeah, that should not be legal. For-profit radio stations need to pay royalties. Movie theaters, video rental places, and bars showing football games should all still pay. They are making money. This grandfather and this kid? They gained nothing monetarily and should not be liable for anything.

      Will media companies make less money? Probably. If the music companies or the movie companies can't afford such lavash production budgets, that's just too bad... life will march on. Many perfectly entertaining movies are made on very low budgets, and many great musicians record for peanuts out of their own pockets. My opinion is that they will continue to make plenty of money, since most people don't pay much attention to copyright now - so things wouldn't really change much.

      Would there still be fighting and stupid lawsuits? Sure. For instance, Grokster would still be on shaky ground. But the fighting would be between commercial interests, where this sort of thing belongs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Sony's Rootkit!? How about Boycot Sony! by GecKo213 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm just a bit curious... Does the patch keep the rootkit permanently disabled and removed? It seems to me that if we put a deviant Sony CD back into our computer that the rootkit would just be reinstalled. Then do we have to run the patch again? This is rediculous. I've do not intend on purchasing any music that has the SONY lable on it. This to me is just plain stupid. What gives Sony the right to install deviant software on "MY" pc and then make it stealth so that I don't know it's there. As far as I'm concerned I think that's the lowest a company can go. That's stooping to the level of those bastard red headed step children Spammers/Spyware installer/Virus/worm pushing assholes.

    I'm to the point now watching this rediculous attempt from Sony to attach it's controls on something that I purchase the rights to use/listen/backup and trying to enforce through deviant means. What is this rootkit supposed to do!? They just wanted to install it for the Hell Of It? Nope, it's supposed to reinforce their stupid DRM bullshit and keep me from listening to the music that I paid for. I'm to the end of my rope. I think that there needs to be a group or mutiple groups put together that should purposefully break what Sony is trying to do. I've been years out of the programming/Computer industry and thus lack the skills to do it, but I think that we should form Anti-DRM, anti-Sony groups to demolish the protection that they put on their stupid CD's. I will not from this day forward purchase anymore music from Sony until they drop their Bullshit practices. I call for a Boycot of Sony's Music. I'm not sure what one man can start, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand around any longer and watch Sony impose itself on me! They want me to buy their shit, then they want to enforce by deviance their policy, and after all that they hijack my PC for WHo knows what! Ahhh! Time for a Revolution. I love my PS2, but am refusing to play it again until SONY stops all this Bullshit! No more video games purchased either. Damn you Sony! Leave me the Hell alone! Stay off of my Computer and my CD's! Damn you!

    With that said, I feel somewhat better, but am still disturbed deep inside that they would have to stoop to that level to try and enforce their protection. Maybe they don't realize that as the sound comes out of the speakers it can be recorded with a MIC and pirated that way, or through LINE OUT. Damn them. Rant Over.
    --
    Generation Trance: What generation are you?
  5. ADSL2+ still only 1Mbps upload by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it comes to upload capacity, ADSL2+ is no better than plain ADSL. Therefore I don't see much of an improvement there. I think the 8/1 ratio in plain ADSL is dumb enough already.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:ADSL2+ still only 1Mbps upload by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody is offering that though(at least in this country - max is 512kb and most have 256). Apparently at those speeds voice quality suffers, so they don't offer it.

      ADSL2+ will have 1MB+ upload from the start, so it's an improvement.

      Also with ADSL2+ you can trade upload for download, so if you wanted a 2MB upload you'd have a slower download (don't know how much slower - it's not equal, and nobody offers it yet anyway).

  6. WHAT??? by Brain_Recall · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This component is not malicious and does not compromise security.

    Say WHAT? ... I ... This.... WOW.

    I cannot belive that they can say this. They released a rootkit, bloody damn general purpose rootkit, and it doesn't comprimise security? IT HIDES AN ENTIRE SUBSET OF FILE NAMES! With this rootkit installed, ANY file or folder starting with $sys$ is immmedately hidden from the Windows API. People are already using it to hide hacks for WoW. What happens if someone distributes a trojan, tells them to run Sony's rootkit to make sure they don't get caught by Warden, and the thing disappears and the user never knows the better.

    Sony screwed up beyond reproach with this, and that comment just makes me scream.

  7. Warm and Fuzzy! by quakeroatz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it reassuring that the Sony DRM removal kit is an ActiveX object, only available with IE?

    Allow popups from xcp-aurora.com? Always/Yes/Never
    Purchase products from from Sony BMG? Never/No/Nada

  8. How to really hurt them by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As has been noted by many others before on the MPAA and RIAA, they don't necessarily want just money (although of course, they want that too), they want CONTROL. By controlling distribution channels, they guarantee profitability in perpetuity. So, the real way to hurt them is to use their attempts at control as fuel for the very revolution they are trying to quash.

    Spend more money on "independent" filmmakers and musicians. Listen to more live music. Tell people why they should do the same (they've given us tons of ammo). Spread the music and films via P2P when the creators allow it. If you are a musician or filmmaker, see if you can do it without the studio and use the net to find your audience.

    Thinking about profits and money is short term thinking, which many Slashdotters accuse the MPAA and RIAA of. I don't think they are actually that stupid.

    --

    "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
  9. Goodbye SGI by stox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A very bad sign in SGI's response to delisting on the NYSE. Unless a company is in deep trouble, they would normally do a reverse split to bring the stock price back over $1. In this case, chances are that SGI will be filing bankruptcy in the near future and cancelling all existing equity. Then create new shares in a debt for equity swap. No need to bother with a reverse split, since they would be delisted when they went bankrupt anyway.

    Pretty sad, SGI pioneered some wonderful technology in its time. Too bad they never figured out business rule #1, ideas don't mean squat unless they make money.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  10. Netflix class action is good marketing by Zeph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just signed on to the class settlement today -- I'm a lapsed subscriber. I also noticed that fine print, and made a mental note to re-cancel after my free month. I suspect this is a tremendously good settlement for Netflix -- I wonder if the cost is going to be filed under "litigation" or "marketing".

  11. Re:Mmmmmm.... sleazy! by BushCheney08 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...since they're clearly counting on turning a judgment against them into a profit-making opportunity...

    Except there never was a judgment against them. That's why it's called a settlement. They chose to offer this up to prevent the possibility of there being a judgment against them...

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  12. Re:"Service Pack" by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, we're mostly techies here. We know what it costs to do tech support, and I bet most of us have gotten good at blowing through the first tier by pretending to do the stupid stuff we'd already done before we called them. So, everyone make 10 calls to Sony, spend a half-hour drinking coffee and jerking around their tech people.

  13. Interesting Questions About The Sony Service Pack by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. The service pack "removes" the rootkit software. Does this mean that when you insert one of their corrupt CDs again, it gets installed again leaving you having to remove it again? Presumably it does not disable the autorunning of CDs?

    2. If you only install the service pack once, then presumably there must be a service/daemon running to detect the insertion of future corrupt CDs to stop the rootkit being installed. In which case, the service pack will need to use continual PC resources to be constantly running.

    3. If the format of the corrupt CDs is such that the rootkit needed to be in place to allow three rips of the CD to be made, what happens once the rootkit is disabled? Can you no longer exercise your fair usage rights to rip the CD for personal use?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  14. Re:24mbit/sec?!?!?! by InvalidError · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For 200', wouldn't it be simpler to simply run ~$30 worth of Cat5E to the customer and not have to use a DSLAM + Modem? 100Mbps full-duplex, only need a managed switch to fix per-port bandwidth limits and port isolation policies.

  15. Do not blame lawyers by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IAAL working in IP and media law and I take strong exception to your attitude. Lawyers are not the cause of this problem. Lawyers are paid money to argue for their clients interests (or perceived interests). If the MPAA pays money to a good lawyer and gives them instructions, that lawyer goes and researches the law, determines what tactics will be effective, and ASKS THE CLIENT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. It is the client who decides to go ahead and sue a grandfather for $400K, and the client who decides to lobby Washington.

    If you want to obliquely suggest killing any group of people because you think this will solve the problem I suggest you review and include (in reverse order):

    4. Artists who continue to participate in the corrupt entertainment industry

    3. The MPAA for ruthlessly trying to protect its own profits and interests

    2. Politicians for being so pathetically weak that they can be bought and sold like prostitutes

    1. Yourself and everyone else who does not fall into 4, 3 or 2 but who (a) funds the MPAA and the artists by buying their crap, (b) funds the politicians with their taxes, and (c) allows the politicians to get away with it by being politically disengaged and reelecting them all the time.

    Do not blame lawyers. In my experience most lawyers tend to be more sympathetic to the views of people like us who are unhappy with these stupid laws and stupid lawsuits than they are to the views of organisations like the MPAA. Most lawyers I know think that the DMCA and its international equivalents are idiotic and outrageously biased, for example. But lawyers are part of an adversarial system, and their duty is to represent the interests of those who retain them to the best of their abilities. So instead of attacking lawyers, why not pony up some cash for your beliefs and help the EFF or someone like that get their own kick ass legal team.

    I am so sick of people who bitch about the corporations owning everything but ignore the fact that the corporations only have as much power as you, the consumer, gives them. And I am SO SICK of people bashing lawyers, who tend to be progressive, intelligent, and politically and socially engaged individuals (real lawyers, not ambulance chasers).

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Do not blame lawyers by winwar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I am so sick of people who bitch about the corporations owning everything but ignore the fact that the corporations only have as much power as you, the consumer, gives them."

      While technically true, this ignores reality. A corporation can spend a lot more time and money on the political process than can an individual. They also have certain advantages, such as most of the rights of a person with few of the disadvantages (death, for instance....) Sure they get a lot of power by getting people to give them money but they invest a lot in encouraging that behaviour too....

      "And I am SO SICK of people bashing lawyers, who tend to be progressive, intelligent, and politically and socially engaged individuals (real lawyers, not ambulance chasers)."

      Deal with it. Remember "ambulance chasers" that are members of the bar ARE real lawyers. Other than that, I don't doubt the qualities you mentioned. Those same qualities tend to make them a very powerful group. The inherent problem is that a lawyer is required to vigorously represent their client-which leads them to do things that many if not most people consider ethically and morally wrong. This leads to lawyer bashing. And I think rightly so. That being said, if I am ever in a legal situation, I want the nastiest one I can afford. Hence the vicious circle....

      And, BTW, most politicians are lawyers. So, by your reasoning, at least some lawyers are fair game :)

    2. Re:Do not blame lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Could you honestly not see a politician writing an almost identical post to yours; blaming everyone but their honest and forthright colleages?

      Seriously, "It's just their job" hardly absolves anyone from their part in these shenanigans.

    3. Re:Do not blame lawyers by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do not blame lawyers. In my experience most lawyers tend to be more sympathetic to the views of people like us who are unhappy with these stupid laws and stupid lawsuits than they are to the views of organisations like the MPAA.

      Objection, opinion. IMO, most lawyers I've known or had experience with are blatantly mercenary, not that there's an issue with that but as soon as money enters the equation the concept of equal justice under law vanishes, by definition.

      Most lawyers I know think that the DMCA and its international equivalents are idiotic and outrageously biased, for example.

      If this is the prevailing opinion, then where are the public statements to that effect by the various Bar Associations?

      But lawyers are part of an adversarial system, and their duty is to represent the interests of those who retain them to the best of their abilities.

      For a fee. A bigger bankroll generally means a better argument.

      So instead of attacking lawyers, why not pony up some cash for your beliefs and help the EFF or someone like that get their own kick ass legal team.

      The term pro bono mean anything to you?

      I am so sick of people who bitch about the corporations owning everything but ignore the fact that the corporations only have as much power as you, the consumer, gives them.

      I gave them nothing. They bought the laws they wanted, I was never asked to vote on them.

      And I am SO SICK of people bashing lawyers, who tend to be progressive, intelligent, and politically and socially engaged individuals (real lawyers, not ambulance chasers).

      The reason laywers are bashed are the images they give us. Who are our good guy lawyers? All I see are big money defense slimeballs, corporate weasels who mask simple statements in paragraphs of legalese, and now-politicains who are too often found to be corrupt and unworthy of respect.

      (Funny that all this is due to a reference to Shakespeare, a man who never would have known any fame except for the fact that his works were 'pirated' and spread around. He was right tho.)

    4. Re:Do not blame lawyers by masdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's bull. You might be paid to represent a client, but its not like they're putting a gun to your head and forcing you to work for them. If lawyers are sick of the stupid lawsuits and laws that keep people down, then why do they keep working for these organizations?

      You have other choices. You can quit. You can find a new firm to work for. You can start your own firm.

    5. Re:Do not blame lawyers by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " its not like they're putting a gun to your head and forcing you to work for them." Thank you! I can understand there are some cases where someone *has* to represent an individual (criminal cases, simple disputes, etc). But c'mon, if someome tells you they want to hire you for X/hr to utterly devastate someone and take all their savings, kids college funds, their house, etc, for as stupid of a reason as this, would the GP *have* to take the job? I'm sure as hell wouldn't. I think this is silly that folks dont' think that they should be held accountable for their employers/clients actions.

      If you do it, regardless of wether you get paid or not to do it you are morally responsible. And I personally have quit jobs (twice) because I found my employer actions/buisness objectionable and or morally aprehensible. In both cases I ended up with a job that was lower paying but in the end more satisfying. I didn't have to go home knowing that I spent the whole day working for someone who lives to take complete advantage of their customers.

      I think the best argument I've heard for employee accountability has to be from Clerks:

      DANTE: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.

      WORKER: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.

      RANDAL: Like when?

      WORKER: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.

      DANTE: Whose house was it?

      WORKER: Dominick Bambino's.

      RANDAL: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?

      WORKER: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.

      DANTE: Based on personal politics.

      WORKER: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.

      RANDAL: No way!

      WORKER: I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky... You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this...[taps his heart] not his wallet.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    6. Re:Do not blame lawyers by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any and all lawyers that work for the RIAA or MPAA are free to take other employment by choice any time they like. No chains are on their ankles, there is no Saddam to burn their families alive if they try to leave. Remember, THEY cash in on this grandpa too.

      Sayihg "lawyers suck" is simply a less articulate way of saying "if you work for an immoral company willingly, you are also immoral" akin to perhaps PETA's view of factory farm workers or labratory technicians. Or maybe even some of the christian 'right' folks who blow abortion workers and security workers to smithereens because of what THEY do for women's health.

      It's a part of our culture to partially blame the workers for the things the corporations do. After all, the corporations exist as a sum of the workers in the first place.

      So, going picking or possibly bankrupting grandpa and grandson for downloading stuff they already own..._downloading_ not distributing will get backlash from the public.

      So I give you a resounding FUCK YOU. Lawyers are evil when they participate in this stuff. They can quit or change firms any time. Sooner or later a pack of geeks will gleefully do the same stuff to these lawyers what they do to spammers and there's not a damn thing your misplaced righteousness bullshit can do to stop it.

    7. Re:Do not blame lawyers by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think, as most siblings have pointed out already, the most common issue with lawyers are their morals, or the lack thereof. Decent people will not help others ruin the lives of senior citizens or 12 year olds willing, and if they do so unintentially, they will attempt to make amends. So any decent person in the position of the MPAA/RIAA's legal representative would immediately quit. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that these people are decent human beings. Then why haven't they done this? Obviously, the money's too good. And that is where the problem comes in. There's something very wrong about sacrificing morals for dough. I think it's called being immoral, but there might be a more appropriate word.

      Maybe, you would argue that these are the bad apples--the ones that give the rest of the lawyers a bad name. Then for the love of all that is good, go and defend your occupation and your reputation, if you think it is worth your time and efforts defending. Fly yourself over there and give legal council to those people--for free. That's what decent people do. If they see something unjust happening to other people, and it is within their power to stop it, they do it. If someone intentionally releases a bad patch that introduces security holes into a popular open-source application, you'd better believe that there'd be a patch out to fix the problem and an immediate blacklisting of the person from the FOSS community the moment people find out about it. Yeah, you argue, but it doesn't cost much to release a software patch. To help these victims of corporate greed would require spending time and money, probably better spent putting food on the table and the kids through college. Besides, vacation time is limited. So I guess lawyers don't mind having their good name tarnished, so long as they still have work.

      All in all, the behavior of your average, everyday lawyer is undefendable and any attempts to do so is just more excuses as to why it isn't pragmatic to be good, decent, humane, or noble--especially not to those who need the most help--on top of being intelligent.

      I noticed you listed intelligent, progressive, and interesting as being a part of a lawyer's makeup. That's probably true, since it does take a certain amount of intelligence and education afterwards to get through law school. However, that says nothing about their morals. Hitler and Stalin were probably just as intelligent, interesting, and from their perspective, progressive, and perhaps even more so than the average lawyer. That doesn't mean they shouldn't've been opposed, violently or otherwise. And yes, lawyers haven't really doing anything attrocious as the two aforementioned personages. But to call draw the analogy between them and Nazi or Soviet Party members wouldn't be too far off. After all, what they did wasn't their fault; it's their superiors' (the clients in the case of the lawyers) orders and they're just following orders.

      Oh, BTW, if you think that by my standards, a lot of people in this world are bad, then yes, I would agree. And there are people who are worse (the ones who are actually making the decisions to sue 12 year olds), but that still doesn't make the other people bad. I wouldn't necessarily agree with killing all of them, but I would do everything I can to not be like them.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:Do not blame lawyers by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Has it ever occurred to you that your attitude is exactly WHY we need laws, lawyers and courts?

      Laws, yes. Courts, yes. But lawyers? What the hell for??

      If the law is so complicated that people have to hire law specialists (lawyers) just to get decent representation in court, then the law needs to be thrown out and rewritten. And yes, that goes for the various court procedures and rules as well.

      For it is pure idiocy to expect people to fully understand and adhere to the law outside the court while simultaneously expecting them to not fully understand the law when in court. You can't have both. You have to choose.

      Everyone believes they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong: legal representation creates a systematic process for determining who is actually right.

      No, legal representation by interested third parties (lawyers) does no such thing. A rational court system which considers all evidence brought before it does.

      The system we have in the U.S. comes nowhere close to this. One need only examine the jury selection process to determine this. The lawyers on either side of the case should have no real power to decide who stays on a jury. Because if you give them that power, as they have right now, the end result is that the people who are left on the jury are likely to be people who know nothing about that which they are asked to render judgement and who likely aren't capable of learning (example: my colleague's friend, who also happens to be a professor of engineering, was rejected from the jury because he truthfully told the court, when asked, that he would reject evidence presented by an "expert witness" if it contradicted the laws of physics as he understands them).

      Hell, the entire idea that the truth is always the halfway point between the two extremes that are represented in an adversarial system is idiotic. The truth is independent of viewpoint and can most effectively be discovered by something like the scientific method, which relies on an objective examination of all the evidence. The U.S. court system gets at the real truth only by chance. It is a laughable sham that amplifies the power of the wealthy. You know -- those who can afford good legal represenation.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  16. Re:"Service Pack" -contact Sony by saskboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I had over 27 hits on my blog today for "sony rootkit" or something similar to that search.
    Here's where you can complain to Sony about DRM and Rootkits:
    http://www.sonymusic.com/about/feedback.cgi

    Here's my letter, please modify it if you use it:

    Dear Sony,
    I'd like you to know how displeased I am that you've put DRM in your Compact Discs, and I'm shocked that "Van Zant's" CD is reported to have a "rootkit" virus that infects Windows so that certain file names remain hidden from even anti-virus scanners. Your product has endangered thousands of music fans, by crippling their Windows system in yet another way that virus writers can exploit.

    I think you owe your customers better.

    Sincerely,
    Saskboy
    Yorkton, SK CANADA

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  17. Roots - squared by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The MPAA (or any group with money to pay for politicians) will continue to extort your money from you until you either (1) kill the lawyers yourself, or (2) pay someone to do it for you.

    (Wasn't this an audio disk? That would be the RIAA.)

    Given the RIAA's origin in organized crime (the jukebox syndicate) and ongoing business model (extortion), I strongly suspect that even going after them with tommyguns - and killing off a number of them - would affect their strategy. (In fact, some of them might find it a refreshing return to the good old days of gang wars - and come after you in return. B-) )

    There are alternatives to violence. Reread the works of Dr. Martin Luther King or Gandhi for powerful accounts of effective alternatives. Nonviolent tactics did work against far more dangerous and evil enemies than the entertainment industry.

    The canonization of King and Ghandi is convenient for the ruling class. But claiming they prove the success of non-violence is a rewrite of history:

    Ghandi succeeded in India - against the British colonial occupation, when a major British government faction was already trying to unload the colony. Ghandi's movement helped empower them to achieve their aims. But remember that he started his political carreer in South Africa, attempting to end Apartheit by similar tactics - a dismal failure. And his prescription for the Jews in Nazi Germany was to commit mass suicide in protest of their treatment.

    MLK's non-violent opposition to Jim Crow segregation was a necessary step in the Civil Rights movement. But the movement didn't succeed until it switched to violence after his assasination and cities burned. King's contribution was to sieze the moral high ground, enabling the claim that non-violence had been tried and had failed.

    (Ghandi's revolution was getting a bit bloody toward the end, too.)

    The current ruling class raises King and Ghandi as role models and conveniently forgets the roles of people like H. Rap Brown an Muhammad X. This detours people from the not-so-non-violent tactics that finished the job - and were the whole of many other successful revolutions - and gets them stuck in an endless loop of non-violent and ineffective protests that can be easily ignored.

    (Please note that I'm not advocating the use of violence - merely trying to correct the never-ending misstatement of the historic record.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. Pot, meet kettle by Solandri · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Lawyers are not the cause of this problem. Lawyers are paid money to argue for their clients interests (or perceived interests). If the MPAA pays money to a good lawyer and gives them instructions, that lawyer goes and researches the law, determines what tactics will be effective, and ASKS THE CLIENT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
    ...
    2. Politicians for being so pathetically weak that they can be bought and sold like prostitutes

    Let me let you in a little secret. People here don't hate corporations per se. What they hate is how most corporations put money ahead of little things like, oh, the greater good of society. Ask yourself if the ones you're defending are doing the same thing.

  19. Ethical duties and illegal orders by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's all well and good -- I know a lot of lawyers, and as you say by and large they don't support stupid laws or overbearing tactics. But clearly there are also far too many lawyers who put the job (and the paycheck) ahead of personal ethics -- after all, your client didn't put a gun to your head and force you to engage in slimeball tactics against people who cannot reasonably defend themselves.

    It occurs to me that this is much like the situation of a military grunt receiving an illegal order from his commanding officer. The grunt's legal and ethical duty is to refuse such an order. Likewise, it should be a lawyer's ethical duty to refuse orders from a slimeball client who uses coercive, illegal, or legal-but-unfair tactics.

    Perhaps if more lawyers would stand up against such clients (despite the enticing mega-fees), lawyers would be perceived as heroes rather than as demon familiars.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  20. Re:Don't blame lawyers??? whatta bunch of crap!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hitmen are paid money to carry out kills for their clients interests (or perceived interests). If the MPAA pays money to a good hitman and gives him instructions, that hitman goes and researches the target, determines what tactics will be effective, and ASKS THE CLIENT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS / CONFIRMATION. It is the client who decides to go ahead and take out a grandfather for $400K.

    Yeah, not the best analogy, but saying the enabler for wrong doing is not at fault is a bunch of crap. What good is being sympathetic (as you suggest lawyers feel for the common man) when you pretend you're sorry for pissing on the common man and do it anyway? It's OK if it's something you're paid to do? Give me a break.

    That is much worse than simply being uninformed because you KNOW what you're doing is against the interests of the commons. And sure, there's groups like the EFF and others, but Capitol Hill is largely run by ex-lawyers (both gov't and lobbyists... as if there's a difference in most cases) and they strike me better than the sympathetic lawyer picture you've painted simply by being unashamed of their utter contempt of people in comparison to their corporate masters.

    If I did redo your list, it would be as follows:

    Smack in the head list:

    2. Artists who continue to participate in the corrupt entertainment industry. You can make it as an independent, and the more that do drive more nails in the coffin of the evil empire.

    1. Yourself and everyone else who (a) funds the MPAA and the artists by buying their crap, (b) funds the politicians with their taxes, and (c) allows the politicians to get away with it by being politically disengaged and reelecting them all the time.

    Smack in the head hard enough that they're out of the picture:

    2. The MPAA for ruthlessly trying to protect its own profits and interests. Nuff said.

    1. Politicians for being so pathetically weak that they can be bought and sold like prostitutes - probably the worst offender since they pretend to be for the people until elections are over, and then it's greed and politics as usual.

    And as for the lawyers... sure, they're not the cause of the problem anymore than not brushing your teeth is the cause of bad breath, but it sure makes the problem worse.

  21. Don't blame the taxpayers either. by yakovlev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    4. Artists who continue to participate in the corrupt entertainment industry

    Agreed to a point. Unfortunately, the only way to make a living as a musician is to participate in the corrupt entertainment industry. Since popular musicians provide real value to society, it's hard to fault this group. They could work in another profession as a day job, but then they could not concentrate on their chosen profession, and the public would not benefit from their musical talent.

    3. The MPAA for ruthlessly trying to protect its own profits and interests

    This one is obvious. As with any megacorp, the MPAA members are responsible for doing everything in their power to maximize their profits. This includes exploiting artists wanting to make a living, exploiting the public domain by extending copyrights, and exploiting a weak government by bullying in the courts and buying laws protecting their profits.

    2. Politicians for being so pathetically weak that they can be bought and sold like prostitutes

    Unfortunately, this is primarily the result of living in a republic with lax campaign finance rules. Since with our "fat and happy" populace and two-party system, votes can essentially be bought and sold with media exposure, political money is what is required to be reelected. Those politicians who stand up to the big corporate interests will fail to receive campaign funding and will not be reelected. Those who are left are the "weak" or corrupt ones who do whatever the corporations ask of them.

    1. Yourself and everyone else who does not fall into 4, 3 or 2 but who (a) funds the MPAA and the artists by buying their crap, (b) funds the politicians with their taxes, and (c) allows the politicians to get away with it by being politically disengaged and reelecting them all the time.

    This is really three groups.

    • a.) true, the best way to remove power from a corporation is to quit buying their products. Unfortunately, American society has become so complacent, that staging a meaningful boycott is basically impossible. However, buying from independent artists is a good start here, and is the only way to allow musicians to get out of their trap.
    • b.) This is TOTALLY OUT OF LINE. The governent has all the guns, and even if you think they're completely corrupt, you don't steal the big kid's lunch money. There is no way to stop paying taxes to a corrupt government short of 1.) moving away from your home and out of the country, 2.) going to jail, or 3.) violent revolution.
    • c.) Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest roots of bad government in our country. People are pretty well off, so they just don't care. When you add in the two-party system, people care even less, since there really isn't any difference between the two parties.

    When it comes down to it, we have a self-sustaining system where corporations pay to elect politicians, politicians establish and protect the corporations, and politicians further protect the right of corporations to do so by not enacting real campaign finance reform. To sustain the system they must keep the populace happy and well-fed (give them their soma, as it were) thus preventing violent revolution and maintaining the ability to buy votes with media attention. For the people to effect any real change in such a system is difficult, since it is virtually impossible to get a sufficiently large group to care, especially since the two-party system ensures that everything but the largest or most well-funded group gets zero voice in government.

    As for your overall point, I agree, lawyers in general are not the problem. However, the profession has become a poster child for a profession full of corrupt individuals, and with good reason. Like politicians, there is more work available for the lawyer who is willing to produce frivolous lawsuits for a client, and our court system makes such lawsuits prof