Fans are discouraged from writing any fiction in Midkemia or using any of the characters created by Raymond E. Feist in other settings... The author suggests that fans turn that creative impulse into creating their own, original, worlds and characters. I agree. Hopefully fans will be intelligent enough to create their own fantasy worlds so that they won't have to buy the books of these writers. I certainly hope these writers continue to discourage fans, because in the end a discouraged fan is not a fan, and hence there is no dependence on these writers / artists for entertainment.
Another train of thought follows the logic that what is forbidden does not exist. And if it exists, simply crack down with utmost force on it, and it ceases to exist. The first mistake was arresting him. The second mistake was letting him free http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect. Just like CIA secret prisons; if you let people out of them, then they won't be secret for too long. Like in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri.
If in fact nothing arises from this then the government(s) will just end up looking more stupid than it / they already were for ignoring his warnings in the first place.
How much money do you think 'the people' would voluntarily pay to somebody studying COX-2 gene promoter haplotypes, or Helicobacter species, or giant magnetoresistance? I don't know. I would suspect quite a lot of money if it was useful information. If studying these things could better society in some way, like fighting cancer, then I suspect that 'the people' would pay quite a lot of money. Probably more money than Radiohead could ever dream of making.
If on the other hand, 'the people' are not interested in obtaining information on these topics, and have no other reason to pay for somebody studying these things, then I would suspect that 'the people' would be willing to pay nothing.
Since you seem to have an interest in science, here are a few places where you can read about the wonders of science:
I had a feeling you would probably get me on a technicality (which would be rather troll-like if you did that on purpose). In this case the Harry Potter we are referring to here is copyrighted works of fiction (and not a trademark), which is the point of discussion. Nobody is talking about selling Harry Potter t-shirts after all.
If you want to discuss copyrights, and you don't want to bring comparisons to patents into the mix, then why allude and not just say "copyright"? There's really no reason. You seem to be the only person who doesn't seem to realize that this whole discussion is about the HP series of books and the copyright issues surrounding them. But then again, I suspect that you really do know what we are talking about.
How do you arrive a that figure? I don't know. It's pretty arbitrary. I guess I got that figure from the same place where the copyright lawyers got the 70-years-after-death copyright extensions from
Are you saying you're really motivated by concern for whether or not authors get lazy? They make more than a million dollars and their art suffers? It's a rhetorical argument. If the pro-copyright zealots can use economic principals to justify their cause, then I feel it's fair game for me too:)
I think you have the cart before the horse: creating content is a lot harder than simply enjoying it. In music, there has long been an issue where artists remix and mashup other artist's work...that's not the same as bittorenting a song! "Stealing" is all relative. Remixes and mash-ups are also things that copyright holders go after (I think we would agree on this). I can't find the quote off hand, but it's a common saying (and a rather lame paraphrase, so excuse me) that nothing new has been created in 500 years. Yes bittorenting a song is easier than creating a song. And listening to a song that has been DRMed can be very frustrating (from what I have heard).
Research what they force publishers to do sometime, and see what a horrible effect they're having. Thanks for the tip. I shall put that on my to-do list. I was going to state that payola is still alive and well in the music industry in the US, but when double-checking with Wikipedia it appears that things may be changing enforcement-wise (See Third-party Loophole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola).)
So... what you're saying essentially is that someone who creates a piece of music, a work of literature, a computer program, anything that is not physically tangible should get absolutely no protection against anyone else making a bunch of free copies and distributing them?
They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then! Of course I never said that. If people want to make money off of their artistic works then so be it. If people want "protection" from artistic works then so be it. But that protection should not be an 800 pound guerrela. What I did say is that having no protection in place is better than having protection in place. This is the way it is now. If the government and industry want to change the laws to make things more fair then I may change my opinion.
making a bunch of free copies and distributing them I have nothing against pursuing organized crime. Although there is an assumption on your part that people won't buy DRM-free music or support artists in other ways. Just a couple of links to give that argument a rest: Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' Paid for by 38% of Site Downloaders http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9088/Radiohead's+'In+Rainbows'+Paid+for+by+38%25+of+Site+Downloaders 38 percent is certainly a high figure considering the people who would not have bought the album in the first place (whether it be available freely or not). A 38 percent profit off of the millions who downloaded that album is really quite a lot of money, not to mention the free advertising.
And let's face facts, people signing up for American Idle aren't making God Save the Queen (the punk version or otherwise). Same as the people chasing music labels in general. More likely than not their music will get perverted into "loudness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war or some form of top-10 type copycat sound.
But yes, people should keep their day jobs unless they don't want to live in poverty. Being a musician is hard even if you're signed on to a major label. Same as with book publishing. The corporates will own everything and give you very little. The issue of IP ownership in this context has very little value.
I think it would be fair to assume that I am using the term "IP" in the context of the discussion at hand (i.e. copyrights). To be even more specific, copyrights as they pertain to artistic works such as novels and music (that I alluded to in my post).
Ok. So, how much money should I get to make off of my IP before I don't get to profit anymore? 1 million dollars or 10 years of protection, whichever is less. Make anymore money and I fear you will become lazy. Have something that is out of print, then you aren't making money off it anyway. Write ten worthy books and invest wisely then you are on your way to being one of the mega-rich.
If you can get rid of the middle-men (book publishers that is, who like the record labels keep most of the profit) then reaching your goals could be easier. Like with indy record labels, I think this could be a spur to the industry.
She has announced her intentions of creating a book solely for this purpose, while adding more details not included in the 7 books. If there was a contractual agreement between the two parties not to publish a book, then this lawsuit would make sense. If there was an oral agreement, then this would also make sense (though not putting it in writing would be rather stupid). Otherwise praising the information on their Web site and then after-the-fact telling them what they can or cannot do with that material does not make sense. Whether JR or other's think this is fair or not is besides the point. The real question is whether it is legal, and if it is illegal then should the laws be changed.
Being "bankrupt" does not mean you have no money, or even that you are poor. It is merely a legal device used to stop creditors from harassing you (to put it simply). It does not even mean that your debts are necessarily written off.
In a case with somebody rich like Mike Tyson, it allows them to sell off house A to pay off house B as an example, despite what the original contracts may state. That's assuming they are not liquid enough to pay off their debts. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but that is my understanding, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
A lot of people seem to feel the situation is different because she made a billion or so off the Potter series. The situation IS different. She is a billionaire now (I'm assuming this to be true). She is no longer an unemployed single mother.
She worked for more than a decade creating the characters so why shouldn't she have the right to control her work? She has the right to control her work. She doesn't have a right to control other people's work. Yeah I know in this case the work is based on that of HP. In this case it is not even a fair use derivative work of fiction, it is merely an aid to understanding the fiction.
If she allows people to freely expand on her work then she looses control and it becomes something she never intended. What is this "it" you speak of? "Looses control"? People should not be allowed to control other people; this isn't 1984 this is 2007. We should have learned better by now.
Many other authors added to his mythologies but none of them equaled the original and most were just trying to make a buck off something popular. Who cares. Don't like it, don't buy it.
Nothing is stopping any of these people from creating original works but they know it's easier to get noticed if you lift from something popular. Nobody is stealing here. I haven't read or watched anything HP, I just heard about HP a lot on the news so I don't have any vested interest either way. I remember when I was a kid I would sometimes write stories about Pack Man, Spider Man, etc... with no evil intent. In either case I would suspect that the author in this case probably "stole" a lot of things from other writers, whether it be Shakespeare or contemporary.
She's not part of the evil empire she's a little person that made good and crossed over. You are correct when you say "crossed over". Yes, just like Darth Vader it seems.
She should be an axample to everyone I agree. That's why she should stop the lawsuit and apologize.
I just wanted to point out that she is writing an encyclopedia the profits from the sale will go to her charity, I believe she has also said if she wins the case the profits from the court case will also go to her charity. - Does that mean all gross profits, net profits (how does she and her publishers define net profit) will go to charity? - Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia. - Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move - I also wander why she just doesn't use one of her other books (old or up-coming) as a charity vehicle, or just give the wads of cash she already has to charity.
Seems to me her charity statements are more like a PR move for suing than an altruistic statement of fact. Rich people with too much idle time can be burdensome.
But it looks like they're trying to do an end run around those publishers, possibly in order to keep all the potential cash for themselves. It's a book about a book (to put it simply). No "end run" here.
Just an addendum and a couple of comments in general:
Note, that in the beginning (post Napster but when when Kazaa was popular), I used to argue with RL friends that file sharing was theft. Then the RIAA started getting aggressive and I started hearing a lot of arguments in favour of DRM and harsh laws involving intellectual property. The pro-IP crowd has educated me quite a lot since then. I am now (pretty much) in favour of laws against DRM and the like. When it comes to IP, then let it be free. If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP. Thanks IRAA et al for educating me.
From the article:
and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts High priced lawyers should get an idea. I feel tempted, but no I won't tell them how to get around this rather lame form of DRM... Let them hire an over-priced computer consultant:P
It's about intellectual property, as long as this concept, however wrong it is, will be defendable, I'll encourage Janet to sue. Interesting point. If these laws exist then it would make sense that people would exploit them. These lawsuits expose the laws (and the people who use them) for what they are. Hopefully this will encourage copyright reform in the manner that patent abuse has brought about (an attempt) at patent reform in the US.
Other than the 1979 oil crisis, the Vietnam situation, Korean conflict, and the Gulf battles, that generation never really knew what it was like to live life "tough". Sure, the US had a major economic recession, the 1987 market crash was rough... LOL!
Another fact is they were also the generation that largely grew up in split families I don't remember anybody who grew up in a split family, perhaps you can give some comparative statistics with authoritative references. Sorry, Fox News does not count.
With me it was a very Wayne's World type of experience (especially growing up in Scarberia, where Mike Myers is from). Though the Korean war was tough on us, most of us survived without being taken prisoner. But Vietnam was easier on us because of the easy access to opium in South East Asia.
They were also the generation behind the creation of today's technology Like instant Cappuccino, distributed spam servers, and Napster. Yep not bad technology we came up with.
Gen-X doesn't know how to handle the responsibility of parenting and having to stick with something to the end. The Oh Really Factor is starting to weigh in on me
But yes, parents are raising stupid kids I can tell:)
I'm hopeful for our future, but Gen-X did a major disservice. I'm trying to make up for my generations disservice by posting on Slashdot.
Having no computer in the bedroom is no worse than saying they can't have a TV or a telephone in their rooms. Sure, today that's considered child abuse Fear and ignorance, FUD, or just dishonest rhetoric. I assure you I do not speak for the majority.
A computer is not a diary or a journal. A computer is a portal to the world, just like a TV or a telephone. I think we're speaking of Internet access in general. A computer is neither a diary nor a portal. A computer though (especially with Internet access, is a VERY personal thing). People talk to friends (and yes the Mythical Stranger), keep notes, diaries, do home work, etc. all with the computer and often with the Internet as well. A computer can facilitate very personal and private endeavours. The diary was a very good analogy (IMHO). Perhaps another analogy would be having a no-door-closed policy for the house lavatory (the place where I presume a lot of kids would first start experimenting with sexuality).
next thing you know everything about the child will be online where a predator can access it. When these discussions come up the topic generally refers to teenagers, and not 5 year olds. But people prefer to use the word "child". "Predator" is one of those words like "Satanist", it has a lot of emotional impact but very little meaning. That being said, it is highly recommended that you teach your children about privacy. If you teach them that privacy is bad, then they are learning the wrong lesson.
BTW: Do you support making the Canadian government stopping CityTV from Toronto from playing Baby Blue? No
After all, if your child has a TV in their bedroom, they could watch this pornographic smut. OK you've got me here, I don't watch a lot of TV much less porn, but I certainly wouldn't ban my children from watching it (if I had any). I certainly wouldn't subscribe to those (pay) channels (the sound tracks, character development and acting are horrible). And I'd have my kids in bed before those movies aired. If they wanted to watch porn then that would be OK by me. Restricting porn would just be giving the message that sex is somewhat bad or "dirty". I certainly wouldn't want my kids to grow up neurotic about sex.
If you support making the internet "safe" for a 7 year old, shouldn't you first make TV safe? Depends what you mean by safe. If it means using parental controls to block religious channels, then I would certainly give that a lot of thought. But I would rather explain to my kids the dangers of religious propaganda and have them experience it from the safety of a TV set so that they could learn what to watch out for.
Now the kids have no rules. It's become decided UNSAFE due to this. You sound like my father 20 years ago. He learned much of what he knew from popular culture (Readers Digest, church, and news journalists); and I'm sure he had his opinions re-enforced by the blue-collar crowd at his work.
Lord of the Flies is total fiction, not even a wild exaggeration of on a true story. Lord of the flies was based on a number of different experiences the author had. The author was a teacher, and he didn't much like the way kids where idealized in books. The characterizations in the novel and the way they interacted with each other where based on his experience of being a kindergarten teacher. Children he found where not just Cherubic innocents.
The novel was also based on the historical episode of how a country isolated itself from the rest of the world and treated it's people (i.e. Nazi Germany). Yes it's fiction. But it's very REAL fiction in many respects. That's probably why it is considered a classic, and read in countries all over the world.
Do you let your kids wander about unsupervised through the real world? Everyone would think you were insane if you did that. Perhaps you should move somewhere else. I see kids all the time walking around unsupervised and I live in a major Canadian city. And yes I walked around unsupervised when I was a kid. My mom even told me that my kindergarten teacher told her NOT to walk me to school because it is unhealthy for my development. And NO I never got raped, murdered or kidnapped. If things are really that bad where you live (the US I presume), then you should move into the most isolated area you can think of, and let your children wander around free where the murderers and rapists won't find them. They will grow up happier and healthier than the evil place they are living now. But I smell FUD.
The simple solution is "No computers with an Internet connection in their rooms!" One of the stupidest right-wing things I've ever heard. But a VERY popular idea. The same type of people who think it's OK to read their kid's diary or journal. Treat your kid like an imbecile, and watch what they grow into.
teaching children about the dangers of the Internet The Internet is not a dangerous place. If it was then I wouldn't be here. What is dangerous is fear and ignorance.
But I suspect this whole controversy has to do more with the fact that a powerful "moral majority" of American's just don't want teens to have sex, whether it be with people older than them or not. Demonize and criminalize the older part of the equation, and one has a great rallying point for society. Helps people feel like they have a common goal and belief system. If people can't agree on the economy or the war, then lets create the idea of a "predator". It's like the old myth that children had to be weary of poisoned candy during Halloween. Yep, bad things can happen, but it rarely happens by strangers.
I'd be more worried about a child going to church or becoming a "page boy" for the morally righteous in Congress than speaking to somebody on Facebook.
The problem is trust. You can't trust that the remote server is who they say they are. Yes Trust is important. The fact is that Internet activity in general isn't trustworthy whether you use encryption or not (certificate Authorities can help with the Trust level of course, assuming that these authorities themselves are trustworthy). With merely encryption at least you know that third parties can't read your data (all-things-being equal... I'm talking about general casual Internet usage, and not a concerted effort to illegally hack/crack into a system, or LE obtaining search warrents, etc). It would be encryption without Trust.
IRC has it's complications. I would think that IRC clients could be made to issue their own unique certificates. Of course trust would be the issue, but at least for one-to-one communication (let's say outside of the network, but accessed through the IRC client) casual snooping by third parties could be avoided. I'm sure there could be counter arguments to this as well; but I remember something that the programmer for Freenet once said (I'm taking this from memory so it's not an exact quote): "It's not meant to be perfect, but better than the system we already have". He was referring more to anonymity than to encryption in general.
At any rate, I'm not an expert in networking or encryption (no certificates, no formal schooling in either (of these specific areas), so excuse me if I made any mistakes in my thinking. I'm just passing on some ideas.
That's pretty much what I did when I last installed DSL for my brother. I'm not sure about younger people now these days (people in there 20's let's say), and I have my own biases because one of my past tech jobs was actually doing customer support for an ISP, but I would suspect that most (or at least a large percentage of people) would just install the software along with all of the other "freebies". With Sympatico IIRC, you can't even have an ISP email address without installing their software and agreeing to their "privacy policy". Call up customer service and they will tell you to install the software to get your email working.
In terms of getting any type of useful information from "customer service": I've always found dslreports.com more trustworthy and convenient.
For the Web I was thinking more in the lines of a Web server issuing it's own certificates (not for financial transactions, but just for general Internet encryption). In this case the certificate would not verify that the Web site is "trustworthy" (like through VeriSign), but rather just that the information going back and forth is encrypted. Granted I've never ran a certificate server, but just doing a Google appears to show that it isn't that hard to set one up (http://microsoft.apress.com/asptodayarchive/72128/issuing-your-own-ssl-certificate-with-certificate-server). I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong:)
The encryption that I speak of would just be for man-in-the middle type of attacks. Having files encrypted on your own computer is another issue with other assumptions. Man-in-the middle being a more passive attack than cracking into a computer system or having your system physically compromised.
As for IRC (or any other IM services), I don't see why not. Some servers (like freenode) allow you to login with the Onion Network. Perhaps you feel that IRC is just used by warez junkies or teenie-boppers or that there aren't security issues with IRC compared to Web sites; but I certainly wouldn't want my private IRC conversations snooped upon.
Having encryption turned on by default is certainly an ideal (for me at least). It seems to be working in the P2P community at least.
Seriously what ISP needs to install something on your computer in order for it to work? Even if you don't hire somebody to install Internet service for you, chances are good that major ISPs will come with installation software that will automatically install your Yahoo accounts, etc. And don't bother reading the small print. Their privacy policies have nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with selling your information. And no, the installation instructions will not tell you how to set up an Internet connection without their software, or even tell you that it is possible.
You are implying that encrypted traffic is by its very nature illegal. When it comes to torrent traffic this is definitely not true. Especially from places like Canada where simple downloading of RIAA etc music is (still) legal, and as is seen from sites like LegalTorrents.com.
Encryption with P2P clients is also much easier to forget about or not even notice, since a client can easily process encrypted P2P traffic. This is in contrast to using encryption with email clients, where you often (always?) have to consciously set up encryption and tell your other parties to use the same encryption system also, as well as pass along your encryption keys.
It amazes me that many people just don't want to use encryption at all. People just couldn't be bothered to setup IRC programs, email clients, etc to use encryption. The P2P clients that make encryption the default setting is the smartest thing I ever heard of when it comes to Internet clients. I hope other Internet clients (and servers) come with encryption turned on by default as well (like Web servers, email clients, IRC clients, etc). There is no need for people to use the Internet without encryption. If people want to snoop other people's data then they should have a search warrant. Yes it makes things more difficult for the police and the RIAA, but it makes things a lot easier for your average person to live in privacy. Depends though on what type of state we would prefer to live in: police or civil.
I could imagine however, if the use of encryption were to become ubiquitous, that Western governments would try to make encryption without the use of a master key illegal. This I can see happening. It will be controlled and monitored information flow like DRM technology is today.
Slashdot Mirror
The second mistake was letting him free http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.
Just like CIA secret prisons; if you let people out of them, then they won't be secret for too long. Like in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri.
If in fact nothing arises from this then the government(s) will just end up looking more stupid than it / they already were for ignoring his warnings in the first place.
The sad thing is that eavesdropping on Tor exit nodes isn't an original idea, and it's even posted right on the Tor Website itself https://wiki.torproject.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#head-5e18f8a8f98fa9e69ffac725e96f39641bec7ac1. Why the government would want to publicize this vulnerability is a real conundrum.
If on the other hand, 'the people' are not interested in obtaining information on these topics, and have no other reason to pay for somebody studying these things, then I would suspect that 'the people' would be willing to pay nothing.
Since you seem to have an interest in science, here are a few places where you can read about the wonders of science:
The National Science Digital Library http://nsdl.org/
Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/
Working Knowledge for Business Leaders http://hbswk.hbs.edu/ (more business oriented obviously)
Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/
FYI:
What a trademark is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
What a copyright is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Q.E.D.
They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then! Of course I never said that.
If people want to make money off of their artistic works then so be it. If people want "protection" from artistic works then so be it. But that protection should not be an 800 pound guerrela. What I did say is that having no protection in place is better than having protection in place. This is the way it is now. If the government and industry want to change the laws to make things more fair then I may change my opinion. making a bunch of free copies and distributing them I have nothing against pursuing organized crime. Although there is an assumption on your part that people won't buy DRM-free music or support artists in other ways. Just a couple of links to give that argument a rest:
Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' Paid for by 38% of Site Downloaders
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9088/Radiohead's+'In+Rainbows'+Paid+for+by+38%25+of+Site+Downloaders
38 percent is certainly a high figure considering the people who would not have bought the album in the first place (whether it be available freely or not). A 38 percent profit off of the millions who downloaded that album is really quite a lot of money, not to mention the free advertising.
And let's face facts, people signing up for American Idle aren't making God Save the Queen (the punk version or otherwise). Same as the people chasing music labels in general. More likely than not their music will get perverted into "loudness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war or some form of top-10 type copycat sound.
But yes, people should keep their day jobs unless they don't want to live in poverty. Being a musician is hard even if you're signed on to a major label. Same as with book publishing. The corporates will own everything and give you very little. The issue of IP ownership in this context has very little value.
I think it would be fair to assume that I am using the term "IP" in the context of the discussion at hand (i.e. copyrights). To be even more specific, copyrights as they pertain to artistic works such as novels and music (that I alluded to in my post).
Make anymore money and I fear you will become lazy.
Have something that is out of print, then you aren't making money off it anyway.
Write ten worthy books and invest wisely then you are on your way to being one of the mega-rich.
If you can get rid of the middle-men (book publishers that is, who like the record labels keep most of the profit) then reaching your goals could be easier. Like with indy record labels, I think this could be a spur to the industry.
Being "bankrupt" does not mean you have no money, or even that you are poor. It is merely a legal device used to stop creditors from harassing you (to put it simply). It does not even mean that your debts are necessarily written off.
In a case with somebody rich like Mike Tyson, it allows them to sell off house A to pay off house B as an example, despite what the original contracts may state. That's assuming they are not liquid enough to pay off their debts. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but that is my understanding, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
- Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia.
- Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move
- I also wander why she just doesn't use one of her other books (old or up-coming) as a charity vehicle, or just give the wads of cash she already has to charity.
Seems to me her charity statements are more like a PR move for suing than an altruistic statement of fact. Rich people with too much idle time can be burdensome.
Note, that in the beginning (post Napster but when when Kazaa was popular), I used to argue with RL friends that file sharing was theft. Then the RIAA started getting aggressive and I started hearing a lot of arguments in favour of DRM and harsh laws involving intellectual property. The pro-IP crowd has educated me quite a lot since then. I am now (pretty much) in favour of laws against DRM and the like. When it comes to IP, then let it be free. If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP. Thanks IRAA et al for educating me.
From the article: and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts High priced lawyers should get an idea. I feel tempted, but no I won't tell them how to get around this rather lame form of DRM... Let them hire an over-priced computer consultant
With me it was a very Wayne's World type of experience (especially growing up in Scarberia, where Mike Myers is from). Though the Korean war was tough on us, most of us survived without being taken prisoner. But Vietnam was easier on us because of the easy access to opium in South East Asia. They were also the generation behind the creation of today's technology Like instant Cappuccino, distributed spam servers, and Napster. Yep not bad technology we came up with. Gen-X doesn't know how to handle the responsibility of parenting and having to stick with something to the end. The Oh Really Factor is starting to weigh in on me But yes, parents are raising stupid kids I can tell
The novel was also based on the historical episode of how a country isolated itself from the rest of the world and treated it's people (i.e. Nazi Germany). Yes it's fiction. But it's very REAL fiction in many respects. That's probably why it is considered a classic, and read in countries all over the world.
What is dangerous is fear and ignorance.
But I suspect this whole controversy has to do more with the fact that a powerful "moral majority" of American's just don't want teens to have sex, whether it be with people older than them or not. Demonize and criminalize the older part of the equation, and one has a great rallying point for society. Helps people feel like they have a common goal and belief system. If people can't agree on the economy or the war, then lets create the idea of a "predator". It's like the old myth that children had to be weary of poisoned candy during Halloween. Yep, bad things can happen, but it rarely happens by strangers.
I'd be more worried about a child going to church or becoming a "page boy" for the morally righteous in Congress than speaking to somebody on Facebook.
IRC has it's complications. I would think that IRC clients could be made to issue their own unique certificates. Of course trust would be the issue, but at least for one-to-one communication (let's say outside of the network, but accessed through the IRC client) casual snooping by third parties could be avoided. I'm sure there could be counter arguments to this as well; but I remember something that the programmer for Freenet once said (I'm taking this from memory so it's not an exact quote): "It's not meant to be perfect, but better than the system we already have". He was referring more to anonymity than to encryption in general.
At any rate, I'm not an expert in networking or encryption (no certificates, no formal schooling in either (of these specific areas), so excuse me if I made any mistakes in my thinking. I'm just passing on some ideas.
That's pretty much what I did when I last installed DSL for my brother. I'm not sure about younger people now these days (people in there 20's let's say), and I have my own biases because one of my past tech jobs was actually doing customer support for an ISP, but I would suspect that most (or at least a large percentage of people) would just install the software along with all of the other "freebies". With Sympatico IIRC, you can't even have an ISP email address without installing their software and agreeing to their "privacy policy". Call up customer service and they will tell you to install the software to get your email working.
In terms of getting any type of useful information from "customer service": I've always found dslreports.com more trustworthy and convenient.
For the Web I was thinking more in the lines of a Web server issuing it's own certificates (not for financial transactions, but just for general Internet encryption). In this case the certificate would not verify that the Web site is "trustworthy" (like through VeriSign), but rather just that the information going back and forth is encrypted. Granted I've never ran a certificate server, but just doing a Google appears to show that it isn't that hard to set one up (http://microsoft.apress.com/asptodayarchive/72128/issuing-your-own-ssl-certificate-with-certificate-server). I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong :)
The encryption that I speak of would just be for man-in-the middle type of attacks. Having files encrypted on your own computer is another issue with other assumptions. Man-in-the middle being a more passive attack than cracking into a computer system or having your system physically compromised.
As for IRC (or any other IM services), I don't see why not. Some servers (like freenode) allow you to login with the Onion Network. Perhaps you feel that IRC is just used by warez junkies or teenie-boppers or that there aren't security issues with IRC compared to Web sites; but I certainly wouldn't want my private IRC conversations snooped upon.
Having encryption turned on by default is certainly an ideal (for me at least). It seems to be working in the P2P community at least.
You are implying that encrypted traffic is by its very nature illegal. When it comes to torrent traffic this is definitely not true. Especially from places like Canada where simple downloading of RIAA etc music is (still) legal, and as is seen from sites like LegalTorrents.com.
Encryption with P2P clients is also much easier to forget about or not even notice, since a client can easily process encrypted P2P traffic. This is in contrast to using encryption with email clients, where you often (always?) have to consciously set up encryption and tell your other parties to use the same encryption system also, as well as pass along your encryption keys.
It amazes me that many people just don't want to use encryption at all. People just couldn't be bothered to setup IRC programs, email clients, etc to use encryption. The P2P clients that make encryption the default setting is the smartest thing I ever heard of when it comes to Internet clients. I hope other Internet clients (and servers) come with encryption turned on by default as well (like Web servers, email clients, IRC clients, etc). There is no need for people to use the Internet without encryption. If people want to snoop other people's data then they should have a search warrant. Yes it makes things more difficult for the police and the RIAA, but it makes things a lot easier for your average person to live in privacy. Depends though on what type of state we would prefer to live in: police or civil.
I could imagine however, if the use of encryption were to become ubiquitous, that Western governments would try to make encryption without the use of a master key illegal. This I can see happening. It will be controlled and monitored information flow like DRM technology is today.