I'm not saying that at all. But, if you look at the aforementioned examples, wouldn't a better (at least from my point of view) course of action (as far as civil disobedience goes) be to keep THE DeCSS source in full view, nevermind the consequences of such?
It seems like there are a lot of people shooting themselves in the collective foot by distributing dummy copies of DeCSS - If we want it to be free, and be free to use it (which is what this is all about, isn't it?) then why are we going out of our way to create confusion on "our" side, if you will?
I'm not saying that the cascading style-sheet remover is a horrible idea, just perhaps not the best, and almost definitely not the most well-thought-out.
I heard that this is precisely how they plan on distributing the sequel to "Hackers". Except that some scenes will be encoded. And you have to be a blind crypto-expert to decode 'em. And the government is going to attempt to disrupt transmission. And, in spite of all the technology SURROUNDING the movie, it'll still be unrealistic and just plain bad. Some things never change, eh?
Is it just me, (he says knowing full well it is), or does it seem like the only reason that they would even bother to "open" Motif to the point they did is as an attempt to be "hip" and "with" the open source community? I understand that there's still Lesstif, if you're looking for a completely bared solution, but it's almost like there's an ulterior motive here.
Of course, I wouldn't go as far as RMS did in my personal tirade against the whole situation. It just seems to me like there's something funny going on behind the scenes - the intentions are almost betrayed by the actions. </Paranoid>
Well, I always thought that us old-school Unix gurus didn't PLAY games. We were all to buys ADMINISTRATING something to have FUN!
Seriously, it's nice to see that we (the Linux community) are finally being catered to by the game companies. How many times has a network game of Starcraft been shot down at a LAN party because "Well, I can't play it! How 'bout more Quake?"
For one thing, I'd like to point out that similar things happen all the time. I use the aformentioned mega-hyper-global-network, and anyone else who's ever been a little "curious" about the software can tell you that if you're kicked off by some script-kiddie with a "punter", by the TOS, you can lose your account (for "disrupting the service"). I've actually fought over that one.
But, in light of the constant complaints of "I can't sign on!", maybe AOL makes the right decision in removing the targets of DoS attacks, et al., from their service.
I mean, come on - if you had a big, red bullseye painted in your backyard, and you wanted jets to quit bombing your pool with napalm, you'd get rid of the bullseye, right?
It seems all to convenient that this is all coming around at once. With the "ILove You" thing and all, VBS is getting a really bad name for things like this. Gnutella happens to have a worm running through it's system right now, but look on the bright side - like they say on their website, it must be user-executed (like most malicious proggies).
All in all, yes, Gnutella won't be totally secure until it's totally open. But after all, it's not like they PLANNED on someone doing this. And if you're not rock-stupid, you shouldn't have a problem here. You take the good, you take the bad...
Pardon me for being the one to piss in everyone's collective Cheerios, but I have to say that a lawsuit is not the way to go here. Time and time again I hear about how the "big guys" are suing over this, that, or the other. The fact is, in most cases it's business versus business trying to dictate practices. There has got to be a better way (if not several) to if not rectify the practices, at least determine a "fair usage". Although I can see the viewpoints of all involved, of what benefit is it to continue to scream "Lawsuit! Lawsuit!" to delay everyone's opportunity to straighten things out amongst themselves?
As computers get faster and faster, thanks to new developments like this, the question becomes one of interaction with the comptuer - many devices that are novelties now (like voice recognition) will be not only feasible, but standard on systems running at that speed. Kinda sheds a new light of the "Equipment Faster than Operator" error we used to joke about at work...
How exactly do they plan to prosecute on this? I can understand if you're the initiator of the virus and leave some sort of tracker so people know YOU did it - in fact, laws are in place for situations like that. But, how can they PROVE that you intentionally distributed the virus? Understood, they will forgive accidents (Melissa, et. al.), but how often do people say, "Ha ha, now I gave you a virus!"
It seems to me that this is just a front for trying to force internet / computer users into revealing their motivations behind their actions - an invasion of mental privacy. There's not a good solid way in most cases to prove that you deliberately gave a virus to another user, and even then, it's easy enough to disprove in almost all circumstances.
It seems an awful lot to me like there are three distinct angles on the whole DeCSS mess - those who want DeCSS stopped in it's tracks (like the MPAA), those who want to see if nothing else a REASONABLE solution to the issue (like the OpenLaw forum), and those who want to use anarchistic, practically childish methods to wear down the MPAA's defenses ("Hey! I wrote a program that strips Cascading Style Sheets!") Please, if you're trying to make a point about what should be done in this situation, COLLABORATE! It's time WE all pull together and JOIN the forces for whatever side we agree with. Let's not attack each other and drag the matter out.
This piece of software is simple enough, and whether or not you want to argue the point of having bots on Napster (or any of the other services), it really is time that someone created something like this. The problem is everyone's jumping on the "It's for suing people" bandwagon - artists like Chuck D., etc., that *PROMOTE* MP3 usage, trading, and whatnot, can use this as a valuable tool. It's not just for generating lists of people to ban - it serves to track just how much something's traded, a popularity guide. Someone should grab this software to generate an internet Billboard list of sorts. Don't assume, just because of the slant of the article, that the only uses are negative - a split atom doesn't always make a bomb.
With the recent debut of internet-based campaigning, weak as it may be, and the ongoing controversy with mp3.com and Napster, do you believe the stronger platform in the presidential race will be that of policing the internet against pornography and pirating, or of spreading the technology, access, and ideology of the internet to those who may not have had any access before?
I had the misfortune to be one of the Napster users banned because of the whole Metallica proceedings, and I read this interview with one thought in mind.
I don't hate Metallica.
And strangely enough, after reading this interview, I still don't. My tastes in music are extremely eclectic, and the reason I first started using Napster was to try to find rare songs that couldn't be easily found anywhere else. It's a great forum for the distribution of the ever-popular parody songs (What if God smoked cannibus, etc.) and a lot of older, less-popular music. Lars, however, made a lot of sense if you read carefully. All he says is that he didn't want Metallica's album-perfect music put up for trade for free, because there CAN still be money made from it, and because he doesn't feel it's necessary. Chuck D., as a counter-example, supports Napster. I also have no problem with this point of view. But, as Lars said, the argument that everyone's ignoring is why Metallica made this decision - *METALLICA* didn't want *THEIR* music traded like that. Metallica's not damning all of the copyright violators of the world. Metallica's not intentionally barring people from enjoying their music, they're just strongly showing a preference about the way it's done. And they know it won't *STOP*, because there are many total anarchists out there. Maybe Lars isn't particularly internet-savvy. Maybe he *DOES* enjoy getting SOME money out of this. This is no reason for us all to scream "Bad guy! Bad guy!" He's just doing what he thinks is right, and it's always up to us (the fans, the Napster users, the real world) to make the final decision. Me? I don't share Metallica songs on Napster anymore. I still do, however, share the Punk Polka.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that at all. But, if you look at the aforementioned examples, wouldn't a better (at least from my point of view) course of action (as far as civil disobedience goes) be to keep THE DeCSS source in full view, nevermind the consequences of such?
It seems like there are a lot of people shooting themselves in the collective foot by distributing dummy copies of DeCSS - If we want it to be free, and be free to use it (which is what this is all about, isn't it?) then why are we going out of our way to create confusion on "our" side, if you will?
I'm not saying that the cascading style-sheet remover is a horrible idea, just perhaps not the best, and almost definitely not the most well-thought-out.
I heard that this is precisely how they plan on distributing the sequel to "Hackers". Except that some scenes will be encoded. And you have to be a blind crypto-expert to decode 'em. And the government is going to attempt to disrupt transmission. And, in spite of all the technology SURROUNDING the movie, it'll still be unrealistic and just plain bad. Some things never change, eh?
Is it just me, (he says knowing full well it is), or does it seem like the only reason that they would even bother to "open" Motif to the point they did is as an attempt to be "hip" and "with" the open source community? I understand that there's still Lesstif, if you're looking for a completely bared solution, but it's almost like there's an ulterior motive here.
Of course, I wouldn't go as far as RMS did in my personal tirade against the whole situation. It just seems to me like there's something funny going on behind the scenes - the intentions are almost betrayed by the actions.
</Paranoid>
Well, I always thought that us old-school Unix gurus didn't PLAY games. We were all to buys ADMINISTRATING something to have FUN!
Seriously, it's nice to see that we (the Linux community) are finally being catered to by the game companies. How many times has a network game of Starcraft been shot down at a LAN party because "Well, I can't play it! How 'bout more Quake?"
For one thing, I'd like to point out that similar things happen all the time. I use the aformentioned mega-hyper-global-network, and anyone else who's ever been a little "curious" about the software can tell you that if you're kicked off by some script-kiddie with a "punter", by the TOS, you can lose your account (for "disrupting the service"). I've actually fought over that one.
But, in light of the constant complaints of "I can't sign on!", maybe AOL makes the right decision in removing the targets of DoS attacks, et al., from their service.
I mean, come on - if you had a big, red bullseye painted in your backyard, and you wanted jets to quit bombing your pool with napalm, you'd get rid of the bullseye, right?
It seems all to convenient that this is all coming around at once. With the "ILove You" thing and all, VBS is getting a really bad name for things like this. Gnutella happens to have a worm running through it's system right now, but look on the bright side - like they say on their website, it must be user-executed (like most malicious proggies).
All in all, yes, Gnutella won't be totally secure until it's totally open. But after all, it's not like they PLANNED on someone doing this. And if you're not rock-stupid, you shouldn't have a problem here. You take the good, you take the bad...
Pardon me for being the one to piss in everyone's collective Cheerios, but I have to say that a lawsuit is not the way to go here. Time and time again I hear about how the "big guys" are suing over this, that, or the other. The fact is, in most cases it's business versus business trying to dictate practices. There has got to be a better way (if not several) to if not rectify the practices, at least determine a "fair usage". Although I can see the viewpoints of all involved, of what benefit is it to continue to scream "Lawsuit! Lawsuit!" to delay everyone's opportunity to straighten things out amongst themselves?
As computers get faster and faster, thanks to new developments like this, the question becomes one of interaction with the comptuer - many devices that are novelties now (like voice recognition) will be not only feasible, but standard on systems running at that speed. Kinda sheds a new light of the "Equipment Faster than Operator" error we used to joke about at work...
How exactly do they plan to prosecute on this? I can understand if you're the initiator of the virus and leave some sort of tracker so people know YOU did it - in fact, laws are in place for situations like that. But, how can they PROVE that you intentionally distributed the virus? Understood, they will forgive accidents (Melissa, et. al.), but how often do people say, "Ha ha, now I gave you a virus!"
It seems to me that this is just a front for trying to force internet / computer users into revealing their motivations behind their actions - an invasion of mental privacy. There's not a good solid way in most cases to prove that you deliberately gave a virus to another user, and even then, it's easy enough to disprove in almost all circumstances.
It seems an awful lot to me like there are three distinct angles on the whole DeCSS mess - those who want DeCSS stopped in it's tracks (like the MPAA), those who want to see if nothing else a REASONABLE solution to the issue (like the OpenLaw forum), and those who want to use anarchistic, practically childish methods to wear down the MPAA's defenses ("Hey! I wrote a program that strips Cascading Style Sheets!")
Please, if you're trying to make a point about what should be done in this situation, COLLABORATE! It's time WE all pull together and JOIN the forces for whatever side we agree with. Let's not attack each other and drag the matter out.
This piece of software is simple enough, and whether or not you want to argue the point of having bots on Napster (or any of the other services), it really is time that someone created something like this. The problem is everyone's jumping on the "It's for suing people" bandwagon - artists like Chuck D., etc., that *PROMOTE* MP3 usage, trading, and whatnot, can use this as a valuable tool. It's not just for generating lists of people to ban - it serves to track just how much something's traded, a popularity guide. Someone should grab this software to generate an internet Billboard list of sorts. Don't assume, just because of the slant of the article, that the only uses are negative - a split atom doesn't always make a bomb.
With the recent debut of internet-based campaigning, weak as it may be, and the ongoing controversy with mp3.com and Napster, do you believe the stronger platform in the presidential race will be that of policing the internet against pornography and pirating, or of spreading the technology, access, and ideology of the internet to those who may not have had any access before?
I had the misfortune to be one of the Napster users banned because of the whole Metallica proceedings, and I read this interview with one thought in mind.
I don't hate Metallica.
And strangely enough, after reading this interview, I still don't. My tastes in music are extremely eclectic, and the reason I first started using Napster was to try to find rare songs that couldn't be easily found anywhere else. It's a great forum for the distribution of the ever-popular parody songs (What if God smoked cannibus, etc.) and a lot of older, less-popular music. Lars, however, made a lot of sense if you read carefully. All he says is that he didn't want Metallica's album-perfect music put up for trade for free, because there CAN still be money made from it, and because he doesn't feel it's necessary.
Chuck D., as a counter-example, supports Napster. I also have no problem with this point of view. But, as Lars said, the argument that everyone's ignoring is why Metallica made this decision - *METALLICA* didn't want *THEIR* music traded like that. Metallica's not damning all of the copyright violators of the world. Metallica's not intentionally barring people from enjoying their music, they're just strongly showing a preference about the way it's done. And they know it won't *STOP*, because there are many total anarchists out there.
Maybe Lars isn't particularly internet-savvy. Maybe he *DOES* enjoy getting SOME money out of this. This is no reason for us all to scream "Bad guy! Bad guy!" He's just doing what he thinks is right, and it's always up to us (the fans, the Napster users, the real world) to make the final decision.
Me? I don't share Metallica songs on Napster anymore. I still do, however, share the Punk Polka.