How do you justify punishing people who trade you music via MP3 when a large part of Metallica's INITIAL success was due in no small part to the underground trading of BOOTLEG tapes?
Is there a REAL qualitative difference between trading on a computer versus trading in person? Aren't the same laws broken?
First off, I LOVE the band. I think they've been one of the most consistently high-quality groups of recent times.
Also, I'm impressed by the relatively high number of posters that have avoided blindly defending MP3. MP3s, generally, are illegal. I'll use them, but I won't defend them.
And had this been ANY other band, I'd probably have said nothing at all about the whole situation. Napster DID say that they'd remove people that were REPORTED to them as providing copyrighted material. Metallica is just asking them to do that.
BUT (big but), Metallica is a band that was MADE FAMOUS by an underground music scene. In the 80s, it was the HUGE heavy metal tape trading culture that MADE them who they are now. Were they bitching when kids were making bootleg tapes back then? HELL NO. Because it served their purpose (namely, gaining name-recognition). But NOW, people are doing the EXACT SAME THING and Metallica is threatening to SUE THEM?
Come on. THAT is just plain old hypocrisy folks. And it's inexcusable.
I didn't really like Trainspotting too terribly much, but I saw that it was an ambitious, well-crafted, well-acted piece.
The Beach, on the other hand, is so utterly worthless that I can scarcely believe the half-positive review you gave it.
Movies filmed in beautiful areas are not beautiful films. They're films with nice sets (in this case, a glorified swimsuit calendar with a nice set). And trying to present kids as dark and complex is one damned trend I've had quite enough of.
Why is it that we suddenly can't go two weeks without some crap-fest that attempts to strike at the hearts of "misunderstood" youth culture? Gag me.
And as for the comparisons to Conrad and Copolla, PUH-LEASE. The closest THIS comes to HoD is the foliage. And The Beach is to Apocalypse Now what Cheezits are to brie.
What does it mean that Yahoo went down from a DoS?
Abso-frickin-lutely NOTHING.
Honestly, I'm amazed this hasn't happened before. DoS attacks are neither elegant, nor difficult if you grasp the basics, so it's really a matter of scope, risk and time. The only thing we should be impressed by is the fact that someone had the cajones to fiddle with such a Big Boy.
People I work with were so amazed that "Yahoo!" went down! *gasp* Why should we be amazed? The idea of a "secure" website is an utter fallacy, inasmuch as there will ALWAYS be more people trying to wreck things than there will be people trying to secure things. It's just a sad, stupid fact.
The best thing that could happen here would be for people to realize that it really ISN'T a big deal when some putz "takes out" a big website. It's no more impressive than someone having the brass tacks to vandalize the Whitehouse. Is it smart? No. Is it easy to do? Not really... Is it possible to avoid it absolutely? Nope.
If a whole bunch of people wind up in court, and 99% of them wind up convicted, one person being acquitted will not help the rest. In a situation where there are multiple similar cases, casuistry, rather than precedent, becomes the controlling juducial force.
It's pretty dangerous to suggest that "all we need" is one win. It's true to an extent, but would be better worded as we need the RIGHT win. The only sort of win that can help in that case is one that trumps the others (i.e. a federal victory).
The resources for defense are slim as it is. The LAST thing we need is the meager funding available through EFF, etc. to be spread across the globe on a hundred different cases. The best thing to do is fight for public awareness.
For that exact reason (resources), I don't believe mirroring the files is a wise move. If we wind up with more plaintiffs that's BAD. I disagree somewhat with the "Official" 2600 position, for instance, that people should mirror the hell out of the source. They SHOULD mirror it, but do so anonymously. We need the information to be available, but we also need to prevent a glut of cases from mucking the works too much.
As much as I hate most of the politics of the AM radio crowd, they ARE highly receptive to hacker-ish issues. AND they have a MAJOR audience. A local newspaper may be able to target a small percentage of potentially interested people, but AM talk shows have a near-captive audience of people who are highly sympathetic to people that are getting stepped on by "the Man."
So if you have a chance, listen to people like Art Bell, Michael Medved (sp?), G. Gordon Liddy, Mike Gallegher, et al. and if an opportunity presents itself, try calling in. If enough of us try, even if we don't get on right away, it may push them to discuss the whole situation on the air.
One warning about G. Gordon Liddy, I tried to call about Mitnick one time and Liddy vetoed me, even though the program director wanted to put me on the air. I still don't know why. But he seems like he'd be willing to listen to this issue.
"PS: I'm wearing my DeCSS source code shirt to work today, and if I have to explain it means one more time, I'm going to go nuts." The REASON you should wear that shirt is so that people ask you about it. Every person that asks is a person you can make sympathetic to the whole issue. Just a thought... -funtax
Hehe. I doubt they'll do that, but I'm a bit concerned about anyone "affiliated" with 2600. I run the Maryland 2600 page and we had been mirroring the DVD files, as per Emmanual's request. I'm still waiting to hear clarification, but the initial response from 2600 makes it sound like the injunction is aimed at 2600 and it's affiliates. I am a bit concerned that this could mean inclusion in the suit.
I know Emmanual is gung-ho about fighting this and I support him completely, but I'm just a lowly recent college grad-type guy without the backing of a legion of fans and the EFF, etc. I don't have the time or the $$$ to fight it in court, and I doubt most of us do. Is it really wise for us to be suggesting that people mirror files haphazardly? I'd say mirroring them on "anonymous" sites, like geocities is safer (though not without hazard).
I know a bunch of folks who had their own, personal (thus easily tracable) sites on the 2600 mirror site a few weeks back. I'd hate to see a bunch of people wind up in jail because they got too wrapped up in what they THINK their rights are. In reality, an injunction means your ass belongs to the Man if you don't quit what you're doing. And for 99% of people that would mean a nice fine and some jailtime, rather than a glorious media-filled battle for "Constitutional Rights."
Enough rambling. I'm just worried that we'll wind up with a nice-sized pile of martyrs here if we aren't careful.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you justify punishing people who trade you music via MP3 when a large part of Metallica's INITIAL success was due in no small part to the underground trading of BOOTLEG tapes?
Is there a REAL qualitative difference between trading on a computer versus trading in person? Aren't the same laws broken?
First off, I LOVE the band. I think they've been one of the most consistently high-quality groups of recent times.
Also, I'm impressed by the relatively high number of posters that have avoided blindly defending MP3. MP3s, generally, are illegal. I'll use them, but I won't defend them.
And had this been ANY other band, I'd probably have said nothing at all about the whole situation. Napster DID say that they'd remove people that were REPORTED to them as providing copyrighted material. Metallica is just asking them to do that.
BUT (big but), Metallica is a band that was MADE FAMOUS by an underground music scene. In the 80s, it was the HUGE heavy metal tape trading culture that MADE them who they are now. Were they bitching when kids were making bootleg tapes back then? HELL NO. Because it served their purpose (namely, gaining name-recognition). But NOW, people are doing the EXACT SAME THING and Metallica is threatening to SUE THEM?
Come on. THAT is just plain old hypocrisy folks. And it's inexcusable.
I didn't really like Trainspotting too terribly much, but I saw that it was an ambitious, well-crafted, well-acted piece.
The Beach, on the other hand, is so utterly worthless that I can scarcely believe the half-positive review you gave it.
Movies filmed in beautiful areas are not beautiful films. They're films with nice sets (in this case, a glorified swimsuit calendar with a nice set). And trying to present kids as dark and complex is one damned trend I've had quite enough of.
Why is it that we suddenly can't go two weeks without some crap-fest that attempts to strike at the hearts of "misunderstood" youth culture? Gag me.
And as for the comparisons to Conrad and Copolla, PUH-LEASE. The closest THIS comes to HoD is the foliage. And The Beach is to Apocalypse Now what Cheezits are to brie.
What does it mean that Yahoo went down from a DoS?
Abso-frickin-lutely NOTHING.
Honestly, I'm amazed this hasn't happened before. DoS attacks are neither elegant, nor difficult if you grasp the basics, so it's really a matter of scope, risk and time. The only thing we should be impressed by is the fact that someone had the cajones to fiddle with such a Big Boy.
People I work with were so amazed that "Yahoo!" went down! *gasp* Why should we be amazed? The idea of a "secure" website is an utter fallacy, inasmuch as there will ALWAYS be more people trying to wreck things than there will be people trying to secure things. It's just a sad, stupid fact.
The best thing that could happen here would be for people to realize that it really ISN'T a big deal when some putz "takes out" a big website. It's no more impressive than someone having the brass tacks to vandalize the Whitehouse. Is it smart? No. Is it easy to do? Not really... Is it possible to avoid it absolutely? Nope.
IMHO, this DoS is no different than any other.
If a whole bunch of people wind up in court, and 99% of them wind up convicted, one person being acquitted will not help the rest. In a situation where there are multiple similar cases, casuistry, rather than precedent, becomes the controlling juducial force.
It's pretty dangerous to suggest that "all we need" is one win. It's true to an extent, but would be better worded as we need the RIGHT win. The only sort of win that can help in that case is one that trumps the others (i.e. a federal victory).
The resources for defense are slim as it is. The LAST thing we need is the meager funding available through EFF, etc. to be spread across the globe on a hundred different cases. The best thing to do is fight for public awareness.
For that exact reason (resources), I don't believe mirroring the files is a wise move. If we wind up with more plaintiffs that's BAD. I disagree somewhat with the "Official" 2600 position, for instance, that people should mirror the hell out of the source. They SHOULD mirror it, but do so anonymously. We need the information to be available, but we also need to prevent a glut of cases from mucking the works too much.
As much as I hate most of the politics of the AM radio crowd, they ARE highly receptive to hacker-ish issues. AND they have a MAJOR audience. A local newspaper may be able to target a small percentage of potentially interested people, but AM talk shows have a near-captive audience of people who are highly sympathetic to people that are getting stepped on by "the Man."
So if you have a chance, listen to people like Art Bell, Michael Medved (sp?), G. Gordon Liddy, Mike Gallegher, et al. and if an opportunity presents itself, try calling in. If enough of us try, even if we don't get on right away, it may push them to discuss the whole situation on the air.
One warning about G. Gordon Liddy, I tried to call about Mitnick one time and Liddy vetoed me, even though the program director wanted to put me on the air. I still don't know why. But he seems like he'd be willing to listen to this issue.
funtax
"PS: I'm wearing my DeCSS source code shirt to work today, and if I have to explain it means one more time, I'm going to go nuts." The REASON you should wear that shirt is so that people ask you about it. Every person that asks is a person you can make sympathetic to the whole issue. Just a thought... -funtax
Hehe. I doubt they'll do that, but I'm a bit concerned about anyone "affiliated" with 2600. I run the Maryland 2600 page and we had been mirroring the DVD files, as per Emmanual's request. I'm still waiting to hear clarification, but the initial response from 2600 makes it sound like the injunction is aimed at 2600 and it's affiliates. I am a bit concerned that this could mean inclusion in the suit.
I know Emmanual is gung-ho about fighting this and I support him completely, but I'm just a lowly recent college grad-type guy without the backing of a legion of fans and the EFF, etc. I don't have the time or the $$$ to fight it in court, and I doubt most of us do. Is it really wise for us to be suggesting that people mirror files haphazardly? I'd say mirroring them on "anonymous" sites, like geocities is safer (though not without hazard).
I know a bunch of folks who had their own, personal (thus easily tracable) sites on the 2600 mirror site a few weeks back. I'd hate to see a bunch of people wind up in jail because they got too wrapped up in what they THINK their rights are. In reality, an injunction means your ass belongs to the Man if you don't quit what you're doing. And for 99% of people that would mean a nice fine and some jailtime, rather than a glorious media-filled battle for "Constitutional Rights."
Enough rambling. I'm just worried that we'll wind up with a nice-sized pile of martyrs here if we aren't careful.