Yet again the answer lies with kdawson. I'm not trying to flame, but every point you've mentioned is valid and the vast majority of cases regarding mis-information, poor headlines, shoddily edited articles and the general "Anti-company" tendencies come from kdawson.
Lately I've been playing a game with myself. I'll read Slashdot articles and try and guess who "edited" them. Strangely, the only guesses I get right are the stories posted up by kdawson.
The notion of owning and controlling the distribution of information is antithetical to a free society.
A free market, liberal (As in liberalism, not whatever Americans pretend is the "left-wing" of politics) way of thinking. Yet if you remove yourself from idealism and step into the real world for a second you'll understand that "knowledge" isn't some intangible, magical fluff. In this case especially (When we're talking about music/movie files etc.) it's a very tangible object, in the sense that it has become "property". So essentially what you're arguing is that "owning and controlling the distribution of property is antithetical to free society" which, funnily enough, is orthodox Marxism. Something I have no problem with, but I don't expect many of "libertarians" and free-market supporters on Slashdot to take too kindly to the fact that when they are calling for "knowledge to be free and untamed" they are calling for the ultimate stage in a Marxist society.
I'm not sure how you feel about this, but this is my personal experience with piracy and your game.
I heard about Democracy, checked out the site, thought it looked pretty cool and headed over to The Pirate Bay were there about a dozen torrents. Soon enough I got over the game and then Democracy 2 came out, which is a A LOT better, and once again headed over to The Pirate Bay to play it. I liked I so much that I decided to buy it. Which I did, yesterday. I figured "Well this is one guy making a really fun and interesting game, he gets all the money and it's only $20! So now I'm enjoying it legally, you've got your money and everyone is happy. Thanks to The Pirate Bay.
Whenever I do buy songs online, I buy them a store that sells them at 320kbps in.mp3 form with no restrictions whatsoever.
I really don't like DRM. I've been bitten by it in the past with iTunes locking me out after too many computers were authorised to play tracks I legally purchased. Anyway. The argument coming from this story against DRM doesn't make much sense to me. "The validation servers are offline". All that's showing is that the one possible benefit that can come out of DRM is no longer there. And in this specific area it's at the same level as non-DRM music. That's a tad confusing so I'll explain further.
The only positive I can ever see coming out of DRM systems is the fact that once you've "bought" something, you can download it again and again. Say if you reformatted or something. This is obviously negated by limitations such as the above iTunes example. However other DRM services like Steam pull this off brilliantly. I've downloaded my Steam games several times after formats and computer changes, and they work fine. Now while this is a limited concept in most DRM systems, it's non existant in non-DRM online stores. I don't know any online store without any kind of DRM that allows you to download a song or an album and infinite number of times once you've purchased it.
So tying this back to the story, the validation servers going off-line simply means that if you lose a song, you can't re-download it. Just like if you bought a CD, or downloaded from another music store without DRM.
The interesting part is that unlike a news paper the company hosting the site doesn't have a great financial interest in free speech.
Actually, they do.
Bloggers don't want their opinions and views to be silenced by "the man". If AOL gets a reputation as a company all too willing to help hush-hush bloggers (The people who bring traffic and revenue to their site), they'll experience a backlash.
Some of you may wonder about the long-windedness of a such a simple point. The thing is, I was trying to pre-empt essentially useless replies from other Slashdotters that get modded Insightful. Say I had written it much simpler without the commas and brackets, like this:
"I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down. But the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here I think it's time to find or create something else."
The first reply to this would have been "There is something fundamentally different about whistle-blowers on the internet. They can attract far more attention and spread their views to more people than in the past. It would have been modded Insightful.
The second would have said "The internet is not free, lulz, read Slashdot and The Register more. You must be new here" etc. It would also have modded Insightful.
And finally, "The internet was never free! Was built and designed by corrupt organisations and is much a scam for our money and freedom as is anything else." You guessed it. Insightful.
Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.
I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down, except maybe the amount of people the blogger it could reach. But, and yes I know this clearly is not the case, the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here (If it ever was), I think it's time to find or create something else.
And and the other poster who was modded into oblivion are making essentially the same point that because they both have names explicitly stating what the site is for, the second one must be a copy. That's incorrect and a tad silly.
Look at Netscape Navigator. It came out in 1994. The name makes it pretty simple to understand what it's about. It allows you "Navigate" the internet. Next year, Internet Explorer was released. It's name was similarly mundane. It allows you to "Explore" the internet. They were both fundamentally different programs but their purpose and audience was the same. Hence, so was their name.
The similarities to this case don't stop there.
The "layout" was the same. Address bar at the top, logo in the top right corner and similar bookmarking functionality. These are just the things I can remember off the top of my head. So just as it would have been stupid for Netscape to sue Microsoft on that basis, it's equally stupid for Facebook to sue StudiVZ.
Ignoring the rest of your comments which really lack any kind of logic whatsoever, I'm going to stick to your "idiot or troll".
The goal of both sites is (Or was, in Facebooks case) to network college type students. "Facebook" is a pretty narrow slang term that I've never really heard anyone use in a "paper" context before now, but it might be the case. However "Students directory" is much more straight foward. So according to you, if I wanted to make another social networking site aimed at college students I'd have to call it something random, otherwise I'd be a plagiarist?
Actually I can't stop myself from pointing out the huge flaws in your remarks. Please don't tell you went right-click -> View page source and then decided "Hmm these are kinda the same"?
Code? So you've seen the source for both these sites? And they're the same? I didn't think so.
Functionality? It's like any other social networking site... You login, you add friends, you write blogs, you post comments, you upload photo's and videos etc. Nothing unique to Facebook.
Layout? They both have a login screen on the left. Ohno! And Facebook hasn't actually trademarked their layout or font, which TFA says are two of things their case is based on.
Features? Essentially the same as functionality. Facebook doesn't over much unique things over other social networking sites, you can hardly call this a rip-off of one and not the other.
The name is an abbreviation for the German "Studentenverzeichnis" or "Studienverzeichnis", which means "Students' Directory". Which is pretty much what it is. Not sure how Students Directory = Facebook.
32665, FACEBOOK, THE FACEBOOK, FACEBOOKHIGH, FBOOK, POKE, THE WALL and other Company graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts and service names are registered trademarks, trademarks or trade dress of Company in the U.S. and/or other countries.
It wasn't called "Fakebook". That was the name of a sub-folder somewhere in the directory where error messages came from. Not sure how it's any different to say an Orkut developer poking (Mind the bad pun) a bit of fun at Myspace by labelling a folder "Cryspace".
That's pathetic. Seems like Facebook borrowed more than money off Microsoft, they took some of their business tactics as well.
Here we have the dominant (Maybe not in sheer numbers around the whole globe, but possibly in Europe, and if not very close) player in the business taking legal action against a new player using the fact that they have the same "font" as a pretext. God. How many different fonts are there in use around the internet?
Maybe Yahoo should sue Google since, you know, they both have a search bar. Why doesn't Microsoft sue Google over Gmail? Why? Well the buttons are on the left and the inbox on the right in both! Facebook has a pretty stupid case and they probably won't win. That shows two things. First of all, they're stupid. Second of all, they're using pretty lame (even if common amongst the big players) tactics to take down a site that probably wouldn't even a pose a big threat to them.
What's the lesson? Business is business. Doesn't matter what type.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Wikipedia article says it's used to help aid thyroid problems.
Yet again the answer lies with kdawson. I'm not trying to flame, but every point you've mentioned is valid and the vast majority of cases regarding mis-information, poor headlines, shoddily edited articles and the general "Anti-company" tendencies come from kdawson.
Lately I've been playing a game with myself. I'll read Slashdot articles and try and guess who "edited" them. Strangely, the only guesses I get right are the stories posted up by kdawson.
Beautiful counter-argument =)
The notion of owning and controlling the distribution of information is antithetical to a free society.
A free market, liberal (As in liberalism, not whatever Americans pretend is the "left-wing" of politics) way of thinking. Yet if you remove yourself from idealism and step into the real world for a second you'll understand that "knowledge" isn't some intangible, magical fluff. In this case especially (When we're talking about music/movie files etc.) it's a very tangible object, in the sense that it has become "property". So essentially what you're arguing is that "owning and controlling the distribution of property is antithetical to free society" which, funnily enough, is orthodox Marxism. Something I have no problem with, but I don't expect many of "libertarians" and free-market supporters on Slashdot to take too kindly to the fact that when they are calling for "knowledge to be free and untamed" they are calling for the ultimate stage in a Marxist society.
You're the creator of Democracy 2 right?
I'm not sure how you feel about this, but this is my personal experience with piracy and your game.
I heard about Democracy, checked out the site, thought it looked pretty cool and headed over to The Pirate Bay were there about a dozen torrents. Soon enough I got over the game and then Democracy 2 came out, which is a A LOT better, and once again headed over to The Pirate Bay to play it. I liked I so much that I decided to buy it. Which I did, yesterday. I figured "Well this is one guy making a really fun and interesting game, he gets all the money and it's only $20! So now I'm enjoying it legally, you've got your money and everyone is happy. Thanks to The Pirate Bay.
Whenever I do buy songs online, I buy them a store that sells them at 320kbps in .mp3 form with no restrictions whatsoever.
I really don't like DRM. I've been bitten by it in the past with iTunes locking me out after too many computers were authorised to play tracks I legally purchased. Anyway. The argument coming from this story against DRM doesn't make much sense to me. "The validation servers are offline". All that's showing is that the one possible benefit that can come out of DRM is no longer there. And in this specific area it's at the same level as non-DRM music. That's a tad confusing so I'll explain further.
The only positive I can ever see coming out of DRM systems is the fact that once you've "bought" something, you can download it again and again. Say if you reformatted or something. This is obviously negated by limitations such as the above iTunes example. However other DRM services like Steam pull this off brilliantly. I've downloaded my Steam games several times after formats and computer changes, and they work fine. Now while this is a limited concept in most DRM systems, it's non existant in non-DRM online stores. I don't know any online store without any kind of DRM that allows you to download a song or an album and infinite number of times once you've purchased it.
So tying this back to the story, the validation servers going off-line simply means that if you lose a song, you can't re-download it. Just like if you bought a CD, or downloaded from another music store without DRM.
The interesting part is that unlike a news paper the company hosting the site doesn't have a great financial interest in free speech.
Actually, they do.
Bloggers don't want their opinions and views to be silenced by "the man". If AOL gets a reputation as a company all too willing to help hush-hush bloggers (The people who bring traffic and revenue to their site), they'll experience a backlash.
Did the miss the fact that the Police Director in this article is named... Godwin?
The cars raced for 50 hours. It wasn't nonstop. Hence the "nine days". The average speed was 45mph on a 2200m course.
The point of being an Anonymous Coward is so the gangs of thugs don't know who you are...
Oh, and to troll.
Godwin's Law meets the Streisand Effect? Meme Meltdown!
Some of you may wonder about the long-windedness of a such a simple point. The thing is, I was trying to pre-empt essentially useless replies from other Slashdotters that get modded Insightful. Say I had written it much simpler without the commas and brackets, like this:
"I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down. But the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here I think it's time to find or create something else."
The first reply to this would have been "There is something fundamentally different about whistle-blowers on the internet. They can attract far more attention and spread their views to more people than in the past. It would have been modded Insightful.
The second would have said "The internet is not free, lulz, read Slashdot and The Register more. You must be new here" etc. It would also have modded Insightful.
And finally, "The internet was never free! Was built and designed by corrupt organisations and is much a scam for our money and freedom as is anything else." You guessed it. Insightful.
Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.
I don't actually think there's anything intrinsically "technological" about this story, be it the fact that there's an anonymous whistle-blower or that the boss is trying to hunt him down, except maybe the amount of people the blogger it could reach. But, and yes I know this clearly is not the case, the Internet was supposed to free us and allow us to share knowledge and information freely and that includes opinions. Since that obviously is no longer here (If it ever was), I think it's time to find or create something else.
How was that different to the actual film, Electra?
Rofl. How did I end up getting modded as troll.
(1) Microsoft doesn't sue
Oh really?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/118767/microsoft_sues_alleged_software_pirates.html/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F128014%2Fmicrosoft_sues_phishers.html&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNFPm_ruNzNNECI8DMuzt3--hohOWw&sig2=V298uGQk4lHzfjyvw2vpNQ/
infozerk.com/averyblog/microsoft-sues-boy-boy-sues-back/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.cnet.com%2FMicrosoft-sues-over-source-code-theft%2F2100-1025_3-6119892.html&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNHnn_gq19jJUeJ_pR0ko8_xmlTzUg&sig2=4dntiLvBSko5_9-3aU5oAA/
news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9730964-7.html/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engadget.com%2F2006%2F09%2F26%2Fmicrosoft-sues-viodenta-for-copyright-infringement%2F&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNGxflq-OCfC4rXs5VZP48Y5ME3Jmg&sig2=onjW3qJ9und85seO-HY8hQ/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com%2Fnews.ars%2Fpost%2F20060718-7284.html&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNFAlxjyBDZLVaFCSwrdoRlIFvCjuA&sig2=_Hk7P4D8oWI5t2kIeldAfA/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fpresspass%2Fpress%2F2004%2Fdec04%2F12-02BrownPaperPR.mspx&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNGLytgdgGZ_moIESURFUlgkHLyGzA&sig2=iW-iFvb7cEkhuOYDHAUazA/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theinquirer.net%2Fen%2Finquirer%2Fnews%2F2006%2F03%2F19%2Fmicrosoft-sues-firm-for-re-selling--spyware-beta&ei=EGyESJv0JonysAPC2NnDCQ&usg=AFQjCNHyzBuJiL7bBT5XcFlFJpDBFxfcWA&sig2=PjSTg-PAhCM5wZyAltCPCw/
There. Proved you wrong with lieterally 5 seconds of Googling.
Why do you feel the need to woefully inject Microsoft?
You must be new here...
And and the other poster who was modded into oblivion are making essentially the same point that because they both have names explicitly stating what the site is for, the second one must be a copy. That's incorrect and a tad silly.
Look at Netscape Navigator. It came out in 1994. The name makes it pretty simple to understand what it's about. It allows you "Navigate" the internet. Next year, Internet Explorer was released. It's name was similarly mundane. It allows you to "Explore" the internet. They were both fundamentally different programs but their purpose and audience was the same. Hence, so was their name.
The similarities to this case don't stop there.
The "layout" was the same. Address bar at the top, logo in the top right corner and similar bookmarking functionality. These are just the things I can remember off the top of my head. So just as it would have been stupid for Netscape to sue Microsoft on that basis, it's equally stupid for Facebook to sue StudiVZ.
Ignoring the rest of your comments which really lack any kind of logic whatsoever, I'm going to stick to your "idiot or troll".
The goal of both sites is (Or was, in Facebooks case) to network college type students. "Facebook" is a pretty narrow slang term that I've never really heard anyone use in a "paper" context before now, but it might be the case. However "Students directory" is much more straight foward. So according to you, if I wanted to make another social networking site aimed at college students I'd have to call it something random, otherwise I'd be a plagiarist?
Actually I can't stop myself from pointing out the huge flaws in your remarks. Please don't tell you went right-click -> View page source and then decided "Hmm these are kinda the same"?
Let's deal with these one by one.
Code? So you've seen the source for both these sites? And they're the same? I didn't think so.
Functionality? It's like any other social networking site... You login, you add friends, you write blogs, you post comments, you upload photo's and videos etc. Nothing unique to Facebook.
Layout? They both have a login screen on the left. Ohno! And Facebook hasn't actually trademarked their layout or font, which TFA says are two of things their case is based on.
Features? Essentially the same as functionality. Facebook doesn't over much unique things over other social networking sites, you can hardly call this a rip-off of one and not the other.
The name is an abbreviation for the German "Studentenverzeichnis" or "Studienverzeichnis", which means "Students' Directory". Which is pretty much what it is. Not sure how Students Directory = Facebook.
Actually, according to their terms of use: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php/
32665, FACEBOOK, THE FACEBOOK, FACEBOOKHIGH, FBOOK, POKE, THE WALL and other Company graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts and service names are registered trademarks, trademarks or trade dress of Company in the U.S. and/or other countries.
Nothing about trademarked fonts or layouts.
The case seems even more tenuous when you realise that it's very doubtful that Facebook copyrighted the font that they use...
Anyone know the coldest place in the universe?
Please don't say Cheney's heart...
It wasn't called "Fakebook". That was the name of a sub-folder somewhere in the directory where error messages came from. Not sure how it's any different to say an Orkut developer poking (Mind the bad pun) a bit of fun at Myspace by labelling a folder "Cryspace".
That's pathetic. Seems like Facebook borrowed more than money off Microsoft, they took some of their business tactics as well.
Here we have the dominant (Maybe not in sheer numbers around the whole globe, but possibly in Europe, and if not very close) player in the business taking legal action against a new player using the fact that they have the same "font" as a pretext. God. How many different fonts are there in use around the internet?
Maybe Yahoo should sue Google since, you know, they both have a search bar. Why doesn't Microsoft sue Google over Gmail? Why? Well the buttons are on the left and the inbox on the right in both! Facebook has a pretty stupid case and they probably won't win. That shows two things. First of all, they're stupid. Second of all, they're using pretty lame (even if common amongst the big players) tactics to take down a site that probably wouldn't even a pose a big threat to them.
What's the lesson? Business is business. Doesn't matter what type.