ICANN has a thorn that they placed in their own side, by opening elections they basically shot themselves in the foot.
ICANN probably wouldn't exist in its current form if it hadn't promised up front to hold elections. They stalled for quite a while and cut the number of elected seats in half, but they had to at least hold an election eventually. Now that they've done it, they say it didn't work and that they aren't going to do it anymore. I think that is the signal to get rid of ICANN. If it can't work democratically, then it shouldn't exist. I think it has become glaringly obvious that what is needed more than anything today is transparency. We've seen the effects of secrecy and corruption. This corporation is administering the Internet for crying out loud! You'd think we could get a little democracy, transparency, and accountability injected into that at least!
Exactly, and if I found a problem and notified MasterLock and they didn't care, and then I go to the local news channel and they air a piece about it, would they be sued? I doubt it. I think this kind of crap has got to stop and the law that makes it possible has got to go.
For example, Alltel (though maybe then they were Aliant) would not permit me to retain a copy of the EULA for ADSL service to which I had to agree. Not even a photocopy post-signature.
I'm pretty sure that's not legal. If you've signed a contract, you should have a copy of the terms that you agreed to. That's just common sense. You should have asked a lawyer about that.
Wow, even a post attempting to put the best possible face on this concedes that it would be quite unfair and difficult for independent musicians to get their music out. I think that's reason enough that this bill should die a horrible death. But unfortunately it won't. People will gradually get used to the fact that you must have major corporate backing to publish anything at all. More and more laws will be passed to cement this idea in place so that existing oligopolies will continue to thrive, with no real chance for anyone to challenge them.
ZDNet had a valid point. I'm sure it will be physically possible to fake a watermark. It never takes some people very long to figure these things out. The problem is that it would be very illegal to do so. You would have no choice but to purchase one from whoever is offering them, at whatever price they ask. From the looks of Hollings' bill that would mandate DRM in all hardware, there would likely be only a single or possibly a small group of companies that can issue watermarks. There would be very little incentive for them to make them cheap either. The vast majority would be sold to corporations with deep pockets. So, the garage band that wants to distribute its music would probably have a very tough time, and probably couldn't do it without either coming up with a lot of cash, or breaking the law. Then there's the issue of whether the controllers of the watermarks would be required to issue them to anyone that wants one or not. If the issuers are in bed with the record industry, then perhaps they would only allow bands that are signed with an RIAA label to get a watermark. There are all sorts of ways this system could be very very bad. Use your imagination. The people doing this are not doing it for your benefit. Keep that in mind while you're pondering possibilities.
You are aware that if Congress makes a law specifically forbidding fair use (the DMCA already forbids it in practice) that the court would most likely go along with it, right? Fair use is arguably not a Constitutional right, and it certainly isn't explicitly stated. There is plenty of reason to worry.
Unless you can prove a specific monetary value of damages, you're screwed. They are only liable if the value is more than $250. How you would prove the worth of your music, I have no idea.
Everyone remember Edward Felton? The Princeton professor that was being threatened by RIAA/SDMI? They threatened to prosecute him for a DMCA violation, but backed down because they knew it wasn't a strong enough case for them. They'd be suing a professor for giving a lecture in an academic setting. That wouldn't go over well, and could end up weakening their position significantly. These organizations know which battles they should be fighting. They've done a good job so far of picking only the ones they are likely to win. I doubt they will go after Perens. It's just too risky. Of course it will probably become obvious at some point that your social standing has a lot to do with what you can get away with. When some dirty hacker does the same thing Bruce does and gets arrested, we'll see that quite clearly.
Actually, I thought I remembered him saying something to that effect in an article a while back. That he had originally supported the DMCA, but later came to realize how it could be abused, and then saw such abuses happening. I can't find the article now though. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
You do realize that we're not too far from a War On Piracy, don't you? It seems to be getting more likely every day. Drugs were legal at one point too. Then the government decided they weren't. It took some time, but things eventually evolved into the sad state of affairs that we see today. I can see the same thing happening with copyright violations. They just need to convince the government that we need to "get tough" on piracy. Is it really much of a stretch to imagine the current administration to go right along with that?
Relax. Nobody is claiming some sort of power because of their ID. If anything, it's just a bit of self-deprecating humor. We know that a low ID means nothing in the great scheme of things. Oh, and we don't allow smoking in our good ol' boy club.
10 years ago, viruses were passed around on floppy disks. Microsoft didn't help much then, and they aren't helping much now. They should forget about Palladium and concentrate on getting rid of the Windows "features" that help make it so easy for viruses to spread. But since that's not as profitable to them, they won't do it. They'll keep proclaiming that we're all doomed unless we hobble the consumers' computers so that they can't do anything significant without permission from Microsoft.
I think it's been proven that people will listen to whatever is spoonfed to them on the radio. These acts don't get tons of airplay because they're popular, they are popular because they get tons of airplay. So if the record industry were to disappear tomorrow, you'll just have a whole different, and much larger group of artists getting airplay. And people will be just fine with that. They'll go see them play in concert. They'll still buy CDs and/or MP3s (as apparently 90% do now). They'll still make money.
Funny. Most people that run Windows have absolutely no clue how to install it. They couldn't install a pirate version if they tried. If they get a pre-installed Linux box, it will let them write documents, create spreadsheets to do their budgets, let them browse the web and get their email, pretty much anything they want to do. For $850 that's pretty good. If they want to pay several hundred more, then that's their decision, but just because they don't buy Windows with their machine does not mean they will pirate it.
Exactamundo! Even if we do cause the planet to implode eventually, we had a good run. If we're really clever, we'll eventually manage to learn to control the environment well enough to fix most of the problems we've made. Either that or we'll figure out how to get the hell off this rock and make our way to another one that we can start over with. Except we'll already have a huge head start experience and technology-wise.
They'll be a staff of nothing but low-level "supervisors" getting paid only $.50 more than the security guards.
Are they supervising each other or what? If they aren't in charge of others, then they aren't supervisors. As for your other point, someone else already answered it quite well.
This is ludicrous. A carry-on item is screened with the assumption that it might contain a weapon for use in hijacking. A discreet search by a competent guard will be more effective, and less embarassing.
You've obviously never been a victim of luggage theft. They can run it through the scanner, they can hand search it if they want, but you should be able to watch every step of the way. There have been tons of cases of a laptop or purse or carryon bag being run through a scanner while the owner is being searched or forced to repeatedly go through the metal detector. By the time the owner gets to the end of the conveyor to pick up the bag, it's been stolen by someone on the other side. The airport can't be held responsible either. This is the most sensible solution.
If they're criminals, leaving them together will allow them to obfuscate any crime, and possibly allow them to overpower or outwit the guards.
What's your point? They certainly won't be getting on a plane after that, and it with the amount of security at airports these days, they would likely be caught very quickly.
Foolish. Make the airline responsible for the fair-market replacement of any items damaged, and require a private place for the customer to repack.
Of course damaged items should be replaced at the airport's expense, but screeners shouldn't be allowed to simply ransack the lugggage and leave everything in disarray. It could take quite a while for someone to repack their bag if it is really messed up, probably making them late for their flight. I know we're supposed to arrive 2 hours early and all, but spending 15-30 minutes re-folding all my clothes (something I'm not proficient at anyway) and repacking everything is not generally included in that buffer time.
Silly. All this does is encouage false "supervisors."
That tactic works fine on the phone, but it wouldn't work so well in person. They either have a badge identifying themselves as a supervisor or they don't. Regardless, I would say that the recording device should also be mandatory. As for assuming any particular sum of money, that's just wrongheaded. By assuming $500, you're making it very unsafe for anyone to carry more than that. That's just wrong.
It's not just the amount of money. Of course stores keep sales figures, but those figures aren't tied to individual shoppers, except those that use these discount cards. The real issue is when you look at your receipt that tells you how much you've spent this year, and then realize that they also know every single item you've bought. That's when it will probably begin to bother you. Unless you were smart and gave them a lot of fake info when you got the card, and then exchanged the card with friends every month or so.
Slashdot Mirror
ICANN has a thorn that they placed in their own side, by opening elections they basically shot themselves in the foot.
ICANN probably wouldn't exist in its current form if it hadn't promised up front to hold elections. They stalled for quite a while and cut the number of elected seats in half, but they had to at least hold an election eventually. Now that they've done it, they say it didn't work and that they aren't going to do it anymore. I think that is the signal to get rid of ICANN. If it can't work democratically, then it shouldn't exist. I think it has become glaringly obvious that what is needed more than anything today is transparency. We've seen the effects of secrecy and corruption. This corporation is administering the Internet for crying out loud! You'd think we could get a little democracy, transparency, and accountability injected into that at least!
Exactly, and if I found a problem and notified MasterLock and they didn't care, and then I go to the local news channel and they air a piece about it, would they be sued? I doubt it. I think this kind of crap has got to stop and the law that makes it possible has got to go.
For example, Alltel (though maybe then they were Aliant) would not permit me to retain a copy of the EULA for ADSL service to which I had to agree. Not even a photocopy post-signature.
I'm pretty sure that's not legal. If you've signed a contract, you should have a copy of the terms that you agreed to. That's just common sense. You should have asked a lawyer about that.
Wow, even a post attempting to put the best possible face on this concedes that it would be quite unfair and difficult for independent musicians to get their music out. I think that's reason enough that this bill should die a horrible death. But unfortunately it won't. People will gradually get used to the fact that you must have major corporate backing to publish anything at all. More and more laws will be passed to cement this idea in place so that existing oligopolies will continue to thrive, with no real chance for anyone to challenge them.
ZDNet had a valid point. I'm sure it will be physically possible to fake a watermark. It never takes some people very long to figure these things out. The problem is that it would be very illegal to do so. You would have no choice but to purchase one from whoever is offering them, at whatever price they ask. From the looks of Hollings' bill that would mandate DRM in all hardware, there would likely be only a single or possibly a small group of companies that can issue watermarks. There would be very little incentive for them to make them cheap either. The vast majority would be sold to corporations with deep pockets. So, the garage band that wants to distribute its music would probably have a very tough time, and probably couldn't do it without either coming up with a lot of cash, or breaking the law. Then there's the issue of whether the controllers of the watermarks would be required to issue them to anyone that wants one or not. If the issuers are in bed with the record industry, then perhaps they would only allow bands that are signed with an RIAA label to get a watermark. There are all sorts of ways this system could be very very bad. Use your imagination. The people doing this are not doing it for your benefit. Keep that in mind while you're pondering possibilities.
You are aware that if Congress makes a law specifically forbidding fair use (the DMCA already forbids it in practice) that the court would most likely go along with it, right? Fair use is arguably not a Constitutional right, and it certainly isn't explicitly stated. There is plenty of reason to worry.
Right. We must blow up each other's equipment and then kick their guns out of their hands so we can fight hand to hand in a big melee.
Unless you can prove a specific monetary value of damages, you're screwed. They are only liable if the value is more than $250. How you would prove the worth of your music, I have no idea.
I just think it's better. :) http://www.slickedit.com/home.php
Everyone remember Edward Felton? The Princeton professor that was being threatened by RIAA/SDMI? They threatened to prosecute him for a DMCA violation, but backed down because they knew it wasn't a strong enough case for them. They'd be suing a professor for giving a lecture in an academic setting. That wouldn't go over well, and could end up weakening their position significantly. These organizations know which battles they should be fighting. They've done a good job so far of picking only the ones they are likely to win. I doubt they will go after Perens. It's just too risky. Of course it will probably become obvious at some point that your social standing has a lot to do with what you can get away with. When some dirty hacker does the same thing Bruce does and gets arrested, we'll see that quite clearly.
Actually, I thought I remembered him saying something to that effect in an article a while back. That he had originally supported the DMCA, but later came to realize how it could be abused, and then saw such abuses happening. I can't find the article now though. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
You do realize that we're not too far from a War On Piracy, don't you? It seems to be getting more likely every day. Drugs were legal at one point too. Then the government decided they weren't. It took some time, but things eventually evolved into the sad state of affairs that we see today. I can see the same thing happening with copyright violations. They just need to convince the government that we need to "get tough" on piracy. Is it really much of a stretch to imagine the current administration to go right along with that?
Relax. Nobody is claiming some sort of power because of their ID. If anything, it's just a bit of self-deprecating humor. We know that a low ID means nothing in the great scheme of things. Oh, and we don't allow smoking in our good ol' boy club.
Damn. I'm such a n00b :)
Hmmm... How much could I get for my number on Ebay?
10 years ago, viruses were passed around on floppy disks. Microsoft didn't help much then, and they aren't helping much now. They should forget about Palladium and concentrate on getting rid of the Windows "features" that help make it so easy for viruses to spread. But since that's not as profitable to them, they won't do it. They'll keep proclaiming that we're all doomed unless we hobble the consumers' computers so that they can't do anything significant without permission from Microsoft.
I think it's been proven that people will listen to whatever is spoonfed to them on the radio. These acts don't get tons of airplay because they're popular, they are popular because they get tons of airplay. So if the record industry were to disappear tomorrow, you'll just have a whole different, and much larger group of artists getting airplay. And people will be just fine with that. They'll go see them play in concert. They'll still buy CDs and/or MP3s (as apparently 90% do now). They'll still make money.
Funny. Most people that run Windows have absolutely no clue how to install it. They couldn't install a pirate version if they tried. If they get a pre-installed Linux box, it will let them write documents, create spreadsheets to do their budgets, let them browse the web and get their email, pretty much anything they want to do. For $850 that's pretty good. If they want to pay several hundred more, then that's their decision, but just because they don't buy Windows with their machine does not mean they will pirate it.
Touche. And no gig for the lack of accent mark. Slashdot doesn't seem to allow the use of "eacute;".
Apparently 99% of people on /. don't know how to use the words they're, there, and their properly.
Exactamundo! Even if we do cause the planet to implode eventually, we had a good run. If we're really clever, we'll eventually manage to learn to control the environment well enough to fix most of the problems we've made. Either that or we'll figure out how to get the hell off this rock and make our way to another one that we can start over with. Except we'll already have a huge head start experience and technology-wise.
They'll be a staff of nothing but low-level "supervisors" getting paid only $.50 more than the security guards.
Are they supervising each other or what? If they aren't in charge of others, then they aren't supervisors. As for your other point, someone else already answered it quite well.
This is ludicrous. A carry-on item is screened with the assumption that it might contain a weapon for use in hijacking. A discreet search by a competent guard will be more effective, and less embarassing.
You've obviously never been a victim of luggage theft. They can run it through the scanner, they can hand search it if they want, but you should be able to watch every step of the way. There have been tons of cases of a laptop or purse or carryon bag being run through a scanner while the owner is being searched or forced to repeatedly go through the metal detector. By the time the owner gets to the end of the conveyor to pick up the bag, it's been stolen by someone on the other side. The airport can't be held responsible either. This is the most sensible solution.
If they're criminals, leaving them together will allow them to obfuscate any crime, and possibly allow them to overpower or outwit the guards.
What's your point? They certainly won't be getting on a plane after that, and it with the amount of security at airports these days, they would likely be caught very quickly.
Foolish. Make the airline responsible for the fair-market replacement of any items damaged, and require a private place for the customer to repack.
Of course damaged items should be replaced at the airport's expense, but screeners shouldn't be allowed to simply ransack the lugggage and leave everything in disarray. It could take quite a while for someone to repack their bag if it is really messed up, probably making them late for their flight. I know we're supposed to arrive 2 hours early and all, but spending 15-30 minutes re-folding all my clothes (something I'm not proficient at anyway) and repacking everything is not generally included in that buffer time.
Silly. All this does is encouage false "supervisors."
That tactic works fine on the phone, but it wouldn't work so well in person. They either have a badge identifying themselves as a supervisor or they don't. Regardless, I would say that the recording device should also be mandatory. As for assuming any particular sum of money, that's just wrongheaded. By assuming $500, you're making it very unsafe for anyone to carry more than that. That's just wrong.
It's not just the amount of money. Of course stores keep sales figures, but those figures aren't tied to individual shoppers, except those that use these discount cards. The real issue is when you look at your receipt that tells you how much you've spent this year, and then realize that they also know every single item you've bought. That's when it will probably begin to bother you. Unless you were smart and gave them a lot of fake info when you got the card, and then exchanged the card with friends every month or so.
"I'VE GOT REDUCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY RIGHT HERE, YOU ASSHOLE! I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK!"
Hey, that's pretty good! Can I use that when I call the guy? Might be easier to find his email address though. Have to use a remailer probably.