I sometimes think that we don't dare stand up against the DMCA. After all its, the entertainment industry that keeps us entertained. Oh what do we do to kill the idle hour? What did we ever do before game consoles, CDs and DVDs.
I frequently read about the DMCA on Slashdot. I've yet to see a Slashdot poll that musters support against it. When all the complaining is done, we all go home to our games, movies and music. The editors here make grandiose statements about "evil corporation X" and then post a review about "X's cool new gizmo". We condemn Sony's role in the SDMI initiative and then go on to say "Oh I can't wait till PS/2 hits the US markets".
Here's a link to a letter I wrote to Malda and Rusty. Nothing came out of it.
Why isn't there a collective, organized protest against DMCA and its lobbyists? Don't we think that its possible to live without the offerings of corporations? Its time to consider this thing seriously, and chip away at it, each day, relentlessly. Keep journals. My journal entry would read, "Today, I would have done X, but for the DMCA. I can't wait until the day that we'll be rid of it".
If we're so weak that we can't resist cool toys, then perhaps we deserve the DMCA.
Interesting. By equating unrelated transactions you have exposed a contradiction.
I have a few questions:
I receive junk mail in my mailbox. Since the USPS believes that "Information must be free". By extension, I conclude that the US government does so to. By the same logic, can people download music and movies and whatever they damn well please? Yes? No?
I like to listen to music. Can my neighbor play his stereo at deafening volume levels throughout the day?Yes? No?
People download music from web sites. Should people tolerate receiving.mp3 files in their mailbox when they didn't ask for it? Yes? No?
The point is this-
People don't want PUSH technology. They're tired of PUSH media such as television, radio, magazines and newspapers. The web is different. People like the freedom it provides. That's why they won't tolerate spam and banner ads. PUSH is anathema to the web. The sooner the PUSHers realize it, the better.
Finally-
Nobody said these spammers can't put up their stuff on their web pages. They're free to do so.
-rao
Re:Napster vs. The GPL
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 3
An argument I often see on Slashdot, "Copyright violation is condoned whereas GPL violation is condemned. Since both are violations, we are hypocrites".
Most programmers believe in sharing. We believe that knowledge only grows by sharing. What little we offer- by way of designs, algorithms and code- we hope enriches humanity. Never has altruism been advocated as a way of life; and never has it been practiced each day so faithfully. GPL protects our deep desire to share, learn and grow as a people.
Contrast that to what Copyright stands for-its implementation today-and, I believe you will have your answer.
Although Copyright and GPL, explicitly say what you can do with what you hold. One does not bind knowledge in fetters.
I think it would be a good idea to include a templates in Gnutella. These templates should create default directory trees: "music/by genre/rock/mp3s" "music/by genre/rock/ram" auctions/computer hardware/ auctions/computer software/ ... ... hobbies/interests/books/ ... ... Users can then search only in the specific branches of the directory tree. e.g. If I were looking for computer software I'd go to that users "/auctions/computer software" directory. A standardized directory structure will aid searches. Thus each person's computer becomes his own mp3.com, ebay.com and so on. It would be a good idea to make the directory structure similar to that of Freenet. So when Freenet is up and running, the migration will be natural.
Not too far in the future.
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
Fahrenheit 451; A world where books are banned and reading them is an offence. A scary view; but Ray Bradbury is licensed to exaggerate-like all story tellers are.
However, there is a possibility that our world may go the way of "Fahrenheit 451". The only difference is that paper books will be banned! their electronic counterparts will be forced upon readers.
As our world increasingly tends towards the hypertext-as opposed to fibertext(text on paper)-one wonders as to what licensing terms will accompany the new books.
Here's what I think: The corporate tiger has tasted license. Now nothing else will satiate it. If the next generation of books is released only in electronic format, and can be read using only approved readers, then the books will be sure to carry the same licensing terms as those associated with todays closed source software.
By stretching my imagination a bit; I can arrive at: "Pay-per-page-turn" Critiquing will now fall under "reverse engineering". So publishers can suppress negative reviews.
-Travellers, old men and story tellers must be allowed their exaggerations.
The music industry is a closed market. If I like an artist's music, I am forced to buy it from his contracting company, regardless of the price. This is unlike the software industry, where I have options. The record companies do not have to compete on price. They just have to sit there and squeeze the music lovers dry.
Here's what we can do as music lovers:
Give up listening to commercial music altogether.
Listen only to artists not associated with RIAA and RIAA affiliated recording studios.
Listen only to the music that you already own.
Do not download any commercial music.
Do not listen to any radio station playing commercial music.
Explain your stand to people you meet, online and offine, and discuss these issues.
Personally, I follow all these.
Trade music if you please, but trade the music of new and deserving artists. Artists who share the same beliefs as you; about music, technology, the web and the future that will be.
Licensing seems to be the trend in corporations. I no longer own software, movie or music. The copyright holder has licensed it to me. On his terms.
The fundamental problem is that many real world truisms are not so obvious in the digital world. e.g. I go to McDonalds. I give them MY money for THEIR French fries. I'm the owner of the fries and they own my money. We've exchanged ownership. Simple. Has worked for thousands of years.
The same does no apply for digitalware. I give them MY money for THEIR digitalware. Now they say that, "You don't own it, we do". And, THEY own MY money. No exchange of ownership. This is a new kind of transaction. Maybe as the owner of the money, I should redefine transaction.
Can I be funny and say, that this dollar bill, serial no "G 27669358 A" is unique. I received it as a reward for some good work I did. That I have elevated the humble dollar bill to Intellectual Property. And that I grant corporations the license to use it(See terms and conditions).
Of course, I will shrink wrap the dollar bill(Hey, UCITA protects anything shrink wrapped, right?) I authorize them to use my money. Only, it will be under my license terms.
My license would say that, they can use the money only in research and development of new software, etc. Under no circumstances should my money, or any portion of it be used to fund their legal department, etc. At the end of the license period, the money must be donated to a charity of my choosing.
"By accessing the files stored on this computer, you agree that neither you, nor any person or entity acting on your behalf will hold me liable for any copyright infringement, whatsoever." Modify this disclaimer to suit your purpose. Say, a clause that makes it illegal for any entity to sniff inbound or outbound packets, track your IP address, write to your ISP, etc. Every Napster, Gnutella user should have this posted on the shared directory.
1. Make mp3 recordings of the First Amendment(making sure that the files are of different sizes). 2. Write a script that looks up a database for names of popular songs and renames the First Amendment recordings accordingly. 3. Upload the recordings to servers and begin trading. Encourage everyone to download the files, numerous times. 4. You can have artists/groups of the week/month. This month its Metallica's turn. Next month, who knows.
Its legal to listen to the First Amendment. Its legal to call it Enter Sandman.
Slashdot Mirror
I've written a TrueCrypt-based simple HOWTO for laptop data-security.
Its called "Steal my laptop (I don't care) - Securing laptop-data"
Here's the link to it:
http://ergo.rydlr.net/?p=39
I sometimes think that we don't dare stand up against the DMCA. After all its, the entertainment industry that keeps us entertained. Oh what do we do to kill the idle hour? What did we ever do before game consoles, CDs and DVDs.
1 524/20#20
I frequently read about the DMCA on Slashdot. I've yet to see a Slashdot poll that musters support against it. When all the complaining is done, we all go home to our games, movies and music. The editors here make grandiose statements about "evil corporation X" and then post a review about "X's cool new gizmo". We condemn Sony's role in the SDMI initiative and then go on to say "Oh I can't wait till PS/2 hits the US markets".
Here's a link to a letter I wrote to Malda and Rusty. Nothing came out of it.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/7/31/20314/
Why isn't there a collective, organized protest against DMCA and its lobbyists? Don't we think that its possible to live without the offerings of corporations? Its time to consider this thing seriously, and chip away at it, each day, relentlessly. Keep journals. My journal entry would read, "Today, I would have done X, but for the DMCA. I can't wait until the day that we'll be rid of it".
If we're so weak that we can't resist cool toys, then perhaps we deserve the DMCA.
-rao
Bear in mind that Copyright law protects only the expression of the idea. Not the idea itself. So I don't know how effective this is going to be.
-R
Perhaps this presents a way to hack the legal system.
They say given enough monkeys and typewriters it is possible to generate the entire works of Shakespeare.
Similarly, it must be possible to generate laws. Monkeys might actually do better than our elected representatives.
Write a program that generates random laws. Periodically, review the laws to ensure that they're Draconian.
When they try to pass a Draconian law, dig out a copyrighted version of the same and prevent them from passing it.
-R
Amazon's competitors would do good to spend some money getting a mouse driver written that will send a mouse_click event on mouse_down event?
Amazon has not patented the 1/2 click now, has it?
If that's patented, try mouse_move.
-rao
If I copyright my personal information, can it be distributed without my permission?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?
-rao
Interesting. By equating unrelated transactions you have exposed a contradiction.
.mp3 files in their mailbox when they didn't ask for it? Yes? No?
I have a few questions:
I receive junk mail in my mailbox. Since the USPS believes that "Information must be free". By extension, I conclude that the US government does so to. By the same logic, can people download music and movies and whatever they damn well please? Yes? No?
I like to listen to music. Can my neighbor play his stereo at deafening volume levels throughout the day?Yes? No?
People download music from web sites. Should people tolerate receiving
The point is this-
People don't want PUSH technology. They're tired of PUSH media such as television, radio, magazines and newspapers. The web is different. People like the freedom it provides. That's why they won't tolerate spam and banner ads. PUSH is anathema to the web. The sooner the PUSHers realize it, the better.
Finally- Nobody said these spammers can't put up their stuff on their web pages. They're free to do so.
-rao
An argument I often see on Slashdot, "Copyright violation is condoned whereas GPL violation is condemned. Since both are violations, we are hypocrites".
Most programmers believe in sharing. We believe that knowledge only grows by sharing. What little we offer- by way of designs, algorithms and code- we hope enriches humanity. Never has altruism been advocated as a way of life; and never has it been practiced each day so faithfully. GPL protects our deep desire to share, learn and grow as a people.
Contrast that to what Copyright stands for-its implementation today-and, I believe you will have your answer.
Although Copyright and GPL, explicitly say what you can do with what you hold. One does not bind knowledge in fetters.
One way to trick the bot/crawler would be to put up the list of shared files and their aliases as a JPG image.
Maybe someone could create a utility that will generate filelist.jpg given a list of filenames and aliases.
Duct tape solution. But should work well for a while.
I think it would be a good idea to include a templates in Gnutella. These templates should create default directory trees:
...
...
...
...
"music/by genre/rock/mp3s"
"music/by genre/rock/ram"
auctions/computer hardware/
auctions/computer software/
hobbies/interests/books/
Users can then search only in the specific branches of the directory tree. e.g. If I were looking for computer software I'd go to that users "/auctions/computer software" directory.
A standardized directory structure will aid searches. Thus each person's computer becomes his own mp3.com, ebay.com and so on.
It would be a good idea to make the directory structure similar to that of Freenet. So when Freenet is up and running, the migration will be natural.
Fahrenheit 451; A world where books are banned and reading them is an offence. A scary view; but Ray Bradbury is licensed to exaggerate-like all story tellers are.
However, there is a possibility that our world may go the way of "Fahrenheit 451". The only difference is that paper books will be banned! their electronic counterparts will be forced upon readers.
As our world increasingly tends towards the hypertext-as opposed to fibertext(text on paper)-one wonders as to what licensing terms will accompany the new books.
Here's what I think:
The corporate tiger has tasted license. Now nothing else will satiate it. If the next generation of books is released only in electronic format, and can be read using only approved readers, then the books will be sure to carry the same licensing terms as those associated with todays closed source software.
By stretching my imagination a bit; I can arrive at:
"Pay-per-page-turn"
Critiquing will now fall under "reverse engineering". So publishers can suppress negative reviews.
-Travellers, old men and story tellers must be allowed their exaggerations.
The music industry is a closed market. If I like an artist's music, I am forced to buy it from his contracting company, regardless of the price. This is unlike the software industry, where I have options. The record companies do not have to compete on price. They just have to sit there and squeeze the music lovers dry.
Here's what we can do as music lovers:
Give up listening to commercial music altogether.
Listen only to artists not associated with RIAA and RIAA affiliated recording studios.
Listen only to the music that you already own.
Do not download any commercial music.
Do not listen to any radio station playing commercial music.
Explain your stand to people you meet, online and offine, and discuss these issues.
Personally, I follow all these.
Trade music if you please, but trade the music of new and deserving artists. Artists who share the same beliefs as you; about music, technology, the web and the future that will be.
Licensing seems to be the trend in corporations. I no longer own software, movie or music. The copyright holder has licensed it to me. On his terms.
The fundamental problem is that many real world truisms are not so obvious in the digital world. e.g. I go to McDonalds. I give them MY money for THEIR French fries. I'm the owner of the fries and they own my money. We've exchanged ownership. Simple. Has worked for thousands of years.
The same does no apply for digitalware. I give them MY money for THEIR digitalware. Now they say that, "You don't own it, we do". And, THEY own MY money. No exchange of ownership. This is a new kind of transaction. Maybe as the owner of the money, I should redefine transaction.
Can I be funny and say, that this dollar bill, serial no "G 27669358 A" is unique. I received it as a reward for some good work I did. That I have elevated the humble dollar bill to Intellectual Property. And that I grant corporations the license to use it(See terms and conditions).
Of course, I will shrink wrap the dollar bill(Hey, UCITA protects anything shrink wrapped, right?) I authorize them to use my money. Only, it will be under my license terms.
My license would say that, they can use the money only in research and development of new software, etc. Under no circumstances should my money, or any portion of it be used to fund their legal department, etc. At the end of the license period, the money must be donated to a charity of my choosing.
"By accessing the files stored on this computer, you agree that neither you, nor any person or entity acting on your behalf will hold me liable for any copyright infringement, whatsoever."
Modify this disclaimer to suit your purpose. Say, a clause that makes it illegal for any entity to sniff inbound or outbound packets, track your IP address, write to your ISP, etc.
Every Napster, Gnutella user should have this posted on the shared directory.
1. Make mp3 recordings of the First Amendment(making sure that the files are of different sizes).
2. Write a script that looks up a database for names of popular songs and renames the First Amendment recordings accordingly.
3. Upload the recordings to servers and begin trading. Encourage everyone to download the files, numerous times.
4. You can have artists/groups of the week/month. This month its Metallica's turn. Next month, who knows.
Its legal to listen to the First Amendment. Its legal to call it Enter Sandman.
That'll solve the problem or create new ones...
CE stands for Compact Edition.