...must provide the originating e-mail address of the spam
...can't forge third party domain names in the spam unless permission is granted
...can't forge header information
...must use "ADV" in the subject line of the spam (for easy filtering)
...must provide an opt-out mechanism
...can't spam people who've requested to be removed
What makes this bill work is that spammers can't forge header information, which would work right in with forging domain names in the spam. A lot of sites out there (nowhere.com, localhost.com, etc.) have fallen victim to spammers forging their domain names, so this will hopefully save the hapless sysadmins from a lot of headaches. Also, it does say that spammers must honor remove requests. But think about how many spammers there are out there. It's almost like the dilemna of getting off a telemarketer's list. You may have gotten off Company A's list, but Company A may have sold your number to Company B, and you're back to square one. Besides, it's been proven in the past that spammers use their remove lists for spam runs, since the addresses are obviously valid. The requiring of "ADV" in the subject line of the spam works, to a degree. While you can filter out the spam based on that information on the user or system level, it doesn't stop the spam.
And there's a lot that doesn't make this bill worth a lot. For one, requiring that the spam provide a valid From: address is just wasting space on the paper the bill is printed on. The spammer could use a Hotmail throwaway and get away with it, since they could argue that it's a valid address. The opt-out mechanism doesn't work either. It's been a fact that a lot of spammers out there use remove lists for spamming. And while the spammers must obey your request, it falls into the telemarketing scenario above. This bill also doesn't prohibit using an open server as a third party relay (AKA relay rape), which is a big problem, since some servers have crashed due to the load of spam being sent through it.
Basically, as long as your spam has a valid From: address, "ADV" in the subject line, an opt-out mechanism, and doesn't forge header information or domain names, you can spam all you want. And that really doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good IMHO.
"Uh, no. I shouldn't be reasonable expected to assume that a nail has barbs on it."
You're right, you shouldn't have to assume that the nail has barbs in it. Then again, maybe you should look where you step next time. Nails are designed to be sharp, with or without barbs. And if you step on one, it will hurt.
"I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that a stove would heat its entire top. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that pizza would burn out my sinuses."
Which is why I said that, even though IANAL, you'd have a case there if negligence could be proved.
"You mean, a company that ignores repeated warnings that it's selling a product in a state that's not simply useless to the consumer but actually hazardous to their health in order to avoid having to throw away coffee for a few extra minutes isn't negligent?"
No, McDonalds was negligent in that matter. They served the coffee at an unusually hot 180 degrees, and that's why Stella Liebeck got the third degree burns. However, perhaps it could've been avoided had Mrs. Liebeck found a better place to put that coffee than between her legs. Nobody should expect that their coffee will be hot enough to burn a hole through your skin, but you should expect that, unless you specified otherwise, the coffee will be hot. Just because McDonalds served dangerously hot coffee doesn't mean we should have to tell Mrs. Liebeck, "Hey, you shouldn't have to assume that coffee is usually served hot, let others pay for your stupidity!"
You're responsible for your own actions. Just because you cut your hand off when you stuck it underneath a running lawnmower doesn't entitle you to be compensated for your stupidity. Lawyers are here to protect us from negligent individuals and organizations, they're not here to protect us from our own stupidity.
"Now if that nail was designed with special barbs to make it hold better, requiring extenisive surgery..."
But that's not negligence on behalf of the nail maker, is it? If Craftsman makes their band saw blades 50% sharper, and you stick your hand in it and lose it, that's not Craftsman's fault that the saw cut through your hand. It's your fault because you stuck your hand in there.
"...if that stove heated the entire stovetop rather than just the burner; if that pizza burned its way completely through the roof of my mouth and burned out my sinuses, I might consider it."
IANAL, but in those two cases, you'd have a chance, because there would be negligence on behalf of the stove maker and the pizza place. That would be if the companies in question knew about the problem and didn't fix it.
"Why? Because I can't be reasonably expected to assume any of these circumstances."
You mean to tell me that you can be reasonably expected to know that a nail is sharp, that a stove is hot, and that a pizza is hot? Pardon me for saying so, but if you couldn't expect that, you're a moron. Now, as I said, if there was negligence on behalf of Company X, and they knew about it, you'd have a case going. But if you're just suing because you're too stupid to realize that the razors made by the Widget Razor Company were sharp when you sliced your hand off, you deserve to be ridiculed.
"Similarly, the jury felt that the woman in the case shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that the coffee she buys at the drive-through window is undrinkably hot and will burn through to muscle before she can get her pants off."
She shouldn't have expected the coffee to give her third-degree burns, that's a fact. And I can see where McDonalds would be at fault for serving 180-degree coffee. But unless she specified otherwise, she should have expected that the coffee would be hot to some degree. How else do you think coffee is served anyway? And the fact that she stuck it between her legs makes her look like a real dumbass. Whether McDonalds was responsible or not, if you stick coffee between your legs and it spills, it will burn, whether it's 140 degrees or 180 degrees.
"And before you go off on a big legal reform kick, remember that the lawsuit is YOUR main protection as an individual against corporate abuse."
You're right, lawsuits are an individual's protection against corporate abuse. Note the bold print? If Company X acted negligently, then you have a case. But if you acted negligently, you deserve to be laughed out of court. Don't expect a jury to bow down to you because you were stupid to protect yourself from yourself.
"But don't make fun of a poor old lady who got handed a little coffee grenade. Some people screw up, but she just got screwed."
So, it's OK to ignore all common sense and do stupid things, and expect others to take the blame for you? If you step on a nail and puncture yourself, you don't sue Craftsman for making the nail sharp, do you? If you put your hand on a lit stove burner and burn your hand, you don't sue Whirlpool because the stove was too hot, do you? When you burn the roof of your mouth on a hot piece of pizza, you don't sue Domino's because they made the pizza too hot, do you?
Yeah, so this old lady got burned by hot coffee. How in the hell do you think coffee is served, COLD? I used to work at a McDonalds in my teenage years, so I know about how hot McDonalds coffee is. But common sense dictates that hot coffee is not to be placed between your legs, it's to be placed in your car's cup holder, or any related holding device. Granted, the car that Mrs. Liebeck was in didn't have a cup holder, but maybe she could've thought of a better place than between her legs to put that cup of coffee. But rather than use common sense, she put the coffee between her legs, opened the top...and made history as a prime example of the "sue happy" mentality of America today. Yes, McDonalds was partly to blame because they served their coffee at a rather hot temperature, but perhaps Mrs. Liebeck could've used a little common sense and not placed that hot coffee between her legs.
And the moral of this rant is? Use your common sense people! When you spill hot coffee on yourself, it's going to burn. When you stick a fork into an electrical outlet, you're going to get shocked. When you step into the oncoming path of a speeding train, you're going to get killed. When you run on a slippery surface, you're going to fall on your ass. Don't expect a company to make you wealthy for life just because you're an idiot.
And for further reading of lawsuit abuse, I suggest everyone check out Overlawyered.com.
Well, it's probably easier to list the RIAA members, since there's so many of them. You can find a list right here.
But if you're looking for a great non-RIAA label, I'd check out Sub Pop Records, based out of Seattle. They're a widely-recognized non-RIAA label (they're very big on the college radio circuit) who was responsible for the popularity of Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Mudhoney. Their music is worth a listen if you love grunge rock, I'd recommend the Sub Pop 200 compilation for starters.
"RMS is opposed to 'privacy for the sake of privacy.' He didn't like using passwords, so for a while his main machine didn't have any passwords (yes, you could actually login as RMS!)."
OK, now RMS has done a lot for free software and Linux in the past few years, and I think we can all applaud him for that. But not even using a damn password? Excuse me if I sound imflammatory, but how stupid do you have to be to not use a password? I don't care if RMS has this view that passwords are evil, even some of the most clueless newbies out there know they should have a password (educating them on choosing a complex alpha-numeric password is another issue) to protect sensitive information.
RMS may be the legendary hacker people see him as, but he's just plain stupid for not using a simple password.
"The quantity of bugs an OS has is a completely meaningless statistic."
I'm glad someone mentioned this. Remember when Slashdot reported that Windows 2000 had 63,000 bugs in it? Of course, everyone here jumped at it and said, "See, that's why Open Source reigns supreme!" However, a bunch of people replied to that story, saying that Debian and Red Hat were comparatively just as bad.
So what's the point with this?
A bug isn't necessarily a design flaw that's going to take down your program (that bug could just be some complaint of a nitpicky programmer)
Quoting raw statistics without further elaboration is misleading
"What can a free software project do about this? Close the mailing lists or newsgroups to the media? Flame/sue the people who screw up?"
In a case like Mozilla, why close yourself to the media? About the only coverage of Mozilla I've seen is right here on Slashdot. A little more exposure for Mozilla certainly can't hurt. Maybe it could even draw some more people to the project, who knows? But just closing your doors to the media and saying "Go away!" will just divert some much needed attention away from your cause.
As for suing / flaming, that won't do any good. As somebody already mentioned in this thread, the reporters have Constitutional protection, as long as they didn't know it was false. As for flaming, well...go ahead. But let's remember people, this is their job, and besides, nobody's perfect. Hell, I'm sure Slashdot has taken a rumor / false story all the way as well.
You know, as much as I like the idea of ROMNet and the fact that I can get some of those rare NES games I could never find, something like this isn't helping to push peer-to-peer file sharing any. The existing file-sharing programs, major ones like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet, are just being pointed to as yet another mode for piracy by the respective industries, and in many cases, it's simply unwarranted. I think that peer-to-peer file-sharing is a great idea and it should be pursued, but I think if more programs such as the ones mentioned pop up, they will just be unfairly demonized as havens for pirates.
"Do I think that Gnutella will move in where Napster stopped? I personally don't, the reason being that Gnutella requires you to set up a direct connection with an individual you've never met."
And what, with Napster, you can set up direct connections with all of your friends?
"So where the dangers surrounding Napster, regarding viruses and child molesters, were moderately nebulous, they're going to be very severe with Gnutella."
Did I read that right? Child molestors and viruses pose a threat to Napster? Good freaking God! As for Gnutella, viruses might pose a threat, but that's why there are these things called virus scanners.
Well, judging by the interview, if this guy is indeed a key technologist for the SDMI, then there's nothing to fear:)
"Spammers could complain that it's governmental prior restraint to filter their unsolicited ads."
Actually, this is a Good Thing(tm). I say, let the spammers have a go at it. Because if they do, then there's going to be a lot of angry people complaining about paying X amount of dollars for the delivery of those e-mails for porn and marketing scams. And if that happens, then maybe the government will be clued in on the problem of spam, and outlaw it outright.
But then again, a lot of spammers claim to filter out.gov addresses. But then again, these are spammers we're dealing with here:)
"The Net provides a marketplace of cultural exchange, benefiting new artists and to music lovers. It's not simply a matter of theft, but of creating an environment in which culture thrives."
Jon, here's something for you to chew on, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
That aside, this is a matter of theft Jon. Yes, Napster is a great promotional tool. Yes, Napster has helped a lot of artists get recognized. And that's all fine and dandy. But your candy-coating everything with "It's net culture!" doesn't work. The musicians need to get paid like the rest of us, and while some people buy the music they get off Napster, others don't. But let me guess, they're only participating in this "culture" thing you rant on, right?
"Maybe music-lovers could pay a flat fee to access music sites which share revenue with entertainment companies and artists. Perhaps artists can use the Net to begin selling their work directly to fans and the public. Maybe debit and other forms of transactional software can be used to charge small amounts of money for downloaded music, using some system that measures time or data. Maybe college students could pay a fraction of a cent for each song they downloaded on college sites, the overall volume generating a fair amount of revenue for artists and corporations."
And maybe I could stand on my roof and shout nonsense. You know, with the methods you advocate above (excluding one), it's still in a zero-sum situation. Sure, we're selling CDs in MP3 format online, and that's fine and dandy. It's just too bad that the same amount of money will still be going to the record companies. And that's a Bad Thing(tm), correct Jon?
We all know that record companies are getting a really big piece of the pie, but there's nothing that we, the music fans, can do about it. Sure, we can all take up the Jon Katz rallying cry of "Culture! Free music! Culture!" But that's just plain bullshit. What good is downloading music off Napster going to do? It's not going to make the industry think "Hey, we're screwing these musicians in the ass," it's going to make them say, "See, nothing but pirates out there!" If anything is going to happen, it's going to happen due to action from the musicians themselves. They're the ones who are directly affected by the industry's ways. They're the ones getting pennies on the dollar. If more artists could speak out and say "Look what they're doing to us," I think it would work better than just having a bunch of Katz groupies downloading music off Napster, because at least it's genuine first-hand experience. Just downloading music under the shield of "Culture!" is going to do more harm than good IMHO.
"I'd pay a micro-payment to yank banner ads from websites I frequent."
Ummmm, why would you pay to remove banner ads from webpages when you can use the Junkbuster Proxy or Guidescope (among other methods for removing banner ads) for free (in both senses)?
"Is it really so unreasonable of the artists to object to someone distributing their work without their consent?"
Absolutely not. I've always held the belief that, if you really like what you hear, you should plunk down the $15 bucks to get the CD. As a matter of fact, I'd wholeheartedly support the RIAA if they were to implement a Napster-like system, where you either pay-per-download, or you pay a monthly subscription fee for unlimited downloads. That way, you know your favorite musician is getting some funds back from it, and you know you're not going to get stuck with files that sound horrible, or are mislabeled. But IMHO, rather than working with the technology, the RIAA is more intent on killing the technology.
"It's not just a matter of money. Napster is just the internet age equivalent of a record bootlegger: they make money of someone elses work, without the artist's consent."
Incorrect analogy. Napster merely makes the files available for download, they're not the ones ripping entire CDs. Additionally, AFAIK, Napster is making money because of their ease of finding music, be it legal or illegal. Do you think that, just because some people out there use Xerox machines to copy copyrighted material to give away, we should come down on Xerox like a load of bricks?
"I agree. The fact that 90% of that music is copyrighted, however, doesn't bother Napster executives one bit, because they still make their money. (Oh sure, they put up their little disclaimer 'Trading Copyrighted stuff is a No-No', but it's there for image only.)"
Image only? You remember when Napster booted all of those users at the requests of Metallica and Dr. Dre, correct?
"I'm not a lawyer, and I don't feel like weeding through the technical jargon in 'Fair Use'...Basically, as long as you own the original CD, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the music *EXCEPT* duplicate it for someone else, no matter WHAT the means. Buying a CD basically gives you an unlimited 1-person license for your own use. (The RIAA would have you believe differently, but that's the way it is.)"
According to 17 USC 107, fair use is granted for the following purposes:
Criticism / Commentary
News Reporting
Teaching
Scholarship / Research
IANAL, but it seems that, according to 17 USC 107, if I wanted to make a copy of my Nirvana CD so I could listen to it in the car, I can't even do that, because "personal use" doesn't fall in the above categories.
Here we have the Court of Appeals giving Napster an appeal, and yet Jon Katz wasted all that time composing yet another rambler of an editorial talking about the Napster aftermath (before it happened).
Yes, I know, Napster won their appeal. Of course, that isn't stopping the RIAA from filing their appeal to Napster's appeal, is it?
Napster is not out of the water yet. Just because the Court of Appeals gave them a reprieve doesn't mean that Napster still can't get shut down by the RIAA. I could get into the philosophical reasons why Napster shouldn't be shut down, but a lof of you know them already.
I've already heard the standard cries of "I'm gonna burn my Metallica CDs!" and "I'm gonna send a flaming e-mail to Hilary Rosen!," but c'mon, what effect will that have? So what if you burn your Metallica CDs, you already bought them, right? And so what if you flame Hilary Rosen? You're just giving them ammo to use against you ("Look at this Napster user, see their blatant disregard for us?!?"). That is why I suggest that the planned boycott for the RIAA should go on. If you're going to send a message to the RIAA about how you feel about Napster, hit them where it matters most: their wallets.
And yes, I realize that this may give the RIAA more reason to cry "They're downloading music from Napster, so now I can't afford my new Lexus!" and the such. But then again, they're going to latch onto whatever they can squeeze sympathy for their side out of.
And if this doesn't make the RIAA listen up, I don't know what will.
"Why would you be so against advertisers gathering data about you based on various criteria and applying it to ads presented to you? Wouldn't you want to see ads that reflect your interests?"
Well, that doesn't affect me, as I filter out all of those annoying banner ads:) But seriously, I wouldn't mind giving a bit of info about my interests so I could get some targeted advertising, but advertisers want to know your personal information, rather than your personal interests. And with all of the brouhaha going on over Toysmart.com selling off their customer databases, Aureate making ad-supported spyware, and Doubleclick linking surfing habits to personal info, who would blame someone for wanting to keep their personal info private?
Call me cynical, but politicians tend to pay more attention to money than they do about the worries of an 18 year old. Do you think some politician is going to give a shit about some teenager who likes music distribution, compared to the RIAA's "worries" and pockets of money? Maybe if the politicians gave two shits about the problems and concerns of the 18 to 24 crowd, maybe more people would vote. But the Almighty Buck(tm) reigns supreme.
"Microsoft may be the leader now, but once Mozilla is complete (only a few more months to go!) then things are going to change."
In a few months you say? Well that's all fine and dandy that Mozilla will be out in a few months. It's just too bad that Microsoft could also have a release of IE in a few months as well, that could theoretically blow Mozilla out of the water. Like the saying goes, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Mozilla has a long way to go before it can match up with IE.
"But what's the real reason Mozilla is going to save the web from being dominated by Microsoft? 2 things actually: embedded apps, and AOL."
Goodie, just what I want in a browser...more bloated features, and a tie-in to AOL! I want a browser that does the job for me, quicky and efficiently. Maybe the Mozilla team should worry about making the browser work efficiently, before they start worrying about adding a Winamp-style skinning ability and AOL tie-ins to the browser.
If you think Mozilla is going to save us all from Microsoft based on those two things, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. Mozilla is losing more and more ground to Microsoft every day, and in a few months, when Mozilla does finally come out, they still have to play catchup to Microsoft, and everyone else who made IE their standard browser, and modeled their pages for IE.
This is the same thing those morons at stopnapster.com advocate. Simply put, this isn't going to work.
The fact that the MP3s are the same length as their CD counterpart helps some, but what is going to stop someone from either...
- Playing the song during the download, hearing the annoying sounds, and aborting the download...
...or...
- Downloading the entire song, hearing the annoying sounds, deleting the offending file, and then warning others saying "Don't download anything from 'RIAALackey,' the files are corrupted!"
These people are claiming to have fooled some people, and I wouldn't doubt that. But remember, Napster has about 20 million users now. Think you can fool 20 million people? Ain't gonna happen.
Slashdot Mirror
...must provide the originating e-mail address of the spam
...can't forge third party domain names in the spam unless permission is granted
...can't forge header information
...must use "ADV" in the subject line of the spam (for easy filtering)
...must provide an opt-out mechanism
...can't spam people who've requested to be removed
What makes this bill work is that spammers can't forge header information, which would work right in with forging domain names in the spam. A lot of sites out there (nowhere.com, localhost.com, etc.) have fallen victim to spammers forging their domain names, so this will hopefully save the hapless sysadmins from a lot of headaches. Also, it does say that spammers must honor remove requests. But think about how many spammers there are out there. It's almost like the dilemna of getting off a telemarketer's list. You may have gotten off Company A's list, but Company A may have sold your number to Company B, and you're back to square one. Besides, it's been proven in the past that spammers use their remove lists for spam runs, since the addresses are obviously valid. The requiring of "ADV" in the subject line of the spam works, to a degree. While you can filter out the spam based on that information on the user or system level, it doesn't stop the spam.
And there's a lot that doesn't make this bill worth a lot. For one, requiring that the spam provide a valid From: address is just wasting space on the paper the bill is printed on. The spammer could use a Hotmail throwaway and get away with it, since they could argue that it's a valid address. The opt-out mechanism doesn't work either. It's been a fact that a lot of spammers out there use remove lists for spamming. And while the spammers must obey your request, it falls into the telemarketing scenario above. This bill also doesn't prohibit using an open server as a third party relay (AKA relay rape), which is a big problem, since some servers have crashed due to the load of spam being sent through it.
Basically, as long as your spam has a valid From: address, "ADV" in the subject line, an opt-out mechanism, and doesn't forge header information or domain names, you can spam all you want. And that really doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good IMHO.
--
"Uh, no. I shouldn't be reasonable expected to assume that a nail has barbs on it."
You're right, you shouldn't have to assume that the nail has barbs in it. Then again, maybe you should look where you step next time. Nails are designed to be sharp, with or without barbs. And if you step on one, it will hurt.
"I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that a stove would heat its entire top. I shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that pizza would burn out my sinuses."
Which is why I said that, even though IANAL, you'd have a case there if negligence could be proved.
"You mean, a company that ignores repeated warnings that it's selling a product in a state that's not simply useless to the consumer but actually hazardous to their health in order to avoid having to throw away coffee for a few extra minutes isn't negligent?"
No, McDonalds was negligent in that matter. They served the coffee at an unusually hot 180 degrees, and that's why Stella Liebeck got the third degree burns. However, perhaps it could've been avoided had Mrs. Liebeck found a better place to put that coffee than between her legs. Nobody should expect that their coffee will be hot enough to burn a hole through your skin, but you should expect that, unless you specified otherwise, the coffee will be hot. Just because McDonalds served dangerously hot coffee doesn't mean we should have to tell Mrs. Liebeck, "Hey, you shouldn't have to assume that coffee is usually served hot, let others pay for your stupidity!"
You're responsible for your own actions. Just because you cut your hand off when you stuck it underneath a running lawnmower doesn't entitle you to be compensated for your stupidity. Lawyers are here to protect us from negligent individuals and organizations, they're not here to protect us from our own stupidity.
--
"Now if that nail was designed with special barbs to make it hold better, requiring extenisive surgery..."
But that's not negligence on behalf of the nail maker, is it? If Craftsman makes their band saw blades 50% sharper, and you stick your hand in it and lose it, that's not Craftsman's fault that the saw cut through your hand. It's your fault because you stuck your hand in there.
"...if that stove heated the entire stovetop rather than just the burner; if that pizza burned its way completely through the roof of my mouth and burned out my sinuses, I might consider it."
IANAL, but in those two cases, you'd have a chance, because there would be negligence on behalf of the stove maker and the pizza place. That would be if the companies in question knew about the problem and didn't fix it.
"Why? Because I can't be reasonably expected to assume any of these circumstances."
You mean to tell me that you can be reasonably expected to know that a nail is sharp, that a stove is hot, and that a pizza is hot? Pardon me for saying so, but if you couldn't expect that, you're a moron. Now, as I said, if there was negligence on behalf of Company X, and they knew about it, you'd have a case going. But if you're just suing because you're too stupid to realize that the razors made by the Widget Razor Company were sharp when you sliced your hand off, you deserve to be ridiculed.
"Similarly, the jury felt that the woman in the case shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that the coffee she buys at the drive-through window is undrinkably hot and will burn through to muscle before she can get her pants off."
She shouldn't have expected the coffee to give her third-degree burns, that's a fact. And I can see where McDonalds would be at fault for serving 180-degree coffee. But unless she specified otherwise, she should have expected that the coffee would be hot to some degree. How else do you think coffee is served anyway? And the fact that she stuck it between her legs makes her look like a real dumbass. Whether McDonalds was responsible or not, if you stick coffee between your legs and it spills, it will burn, whether it's 140 degrees or 180 degrees.
"And before you go off on a big legal reform kick, remember that the lawsuit is YOUR main protection as an individual against corporate abuse."
You're right, lawsuits are an individual's protection against corporate abuse. Note the bold print? If Company X acted negligently, then you have a case. But if you acted negligently, you deserve to be laughed out of court. Don't expect a jury to bow down to you because you were stupid to protect yourself from yourself.
--
"But don't make fun of a poor old lady who got handed a little coffee grenade. Some people screw up, but she just got screwed."
So, it's OK to ignore all common sense and do stupid things, and expect others to take the blame for you? If you step on a nail and puncture yourself, you don't sue Craftsman for making the nail sharp, do you? If you put your hand on a lit stove burner and burn your hand, you don't sue Whirlpool because the stove was too hot, do you? When you burn the roof of your mouth on a hot piece of pizza, you don't sue Domino's because they made the pizza too hot, do you?
Yeah, so this old lady got burned by hot coffee. How in the hell do you think coffee is served, COLD? I used to work at a McDonalds in my teenage years, so I know about how hot McDonalds coffee is. But common sense dictates that hot coffee is not to be placed between your legs, it's to be placed in your car's cup holder, or any related holding device. Granted, the car that Mrs. Liebeck was in didn't have a cup holder, but maybe she could've thought of a better place than between her legs to put that cup of coffee. But rather than use common sense, she put the coffee between her legs, opened the top...and made history as a prime example of the "sue happy" mentality of America today. Yes, McDonalds was partly to blame because they served their coffee at a rather hot temperature, but perhaps Mrs. Liebeck could've used a little common sense and not placed that hot coffee between her legs.
And the moral of this rant is? Use your common sense people! When you spill hot coffee on yourself, it's going to burn. When you stick a fork into an electrical outlet, you're going to get shocked. When you step into the oncoming path of a speeding train, you're going to get killed. When you run on a slippery surface, you're going to fall on your ass. Don't expect a company to make you wealthy for life just because you're an idiot.
And for further reading of lawsuit abuse, I suggest everyone check out Overlawyered.com.
--
Well, it's probably easier to list the RIAA members, since there's so many of them. You can find a list right here.
But if you're looking for a great non-RIAA label, I'd check out Sub Pop Records, based out of Seattle. They're a widely-recognized non-RIAA label (they're very big on the college radio circuit) who was responsible for the popularity of Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Mudhoney. Their music is worth a listen if you love grunge rock, I'd recommend the Sub Pop 200 compilation for starters.
--
"RMS is opposed to 'privacy for the sake of privacy.' He didn't like using passwords, so for a while his main machine didn't have any passwords (yes, you could actually login as RMS!)."
OK, now RMS has done a lot for free software and Linux in the past few years, and I think we can all applaud him for that. But not even using a damn password? Excuse me if I sound imflammatory, but how stupid do you have to be to not use a password? I don't care if RMS has this view that passwords are evil, even some of the most clueless newbies out there know they should have a password (educating them on choosing a complex alpha-numeric password is another issue) to protect sensitive information.
RMS may be the legendary hacker people see him as, but he's just plain stupid for not using a simple password.
--
I'm glad someone mentioned this. Remember when Slashdot reported that Windows 2000 had 63,000 bugs in it? Of course, everyone here jumped at it and said, "See, that's why Open Source reigns supreme!" However, a bunch of people replied to that story, saying that Debian and Red Hat were comparatively just as bad.
So what's the point with this?
A bug isn't necessarily a design flaw that's going to take down your program (that bug could just be some complaint of a nitpicky programmer)
Quoting raw statistics without further elaboration is misleading
Just my two cents.
--
"Any chance of getting adding to /. preferences the ability to screen out stories posted by a given editor?"
Try your Preferences.
--
"What can a free software project do about this? Close the mailing lists or newsgroups to the media? Flame/sue the people who screw up?"
In a case like Mozilla, why close yourself to the media? About the only coverage of Mozilla I've seen is right here on Slashdot. A little more exposure for Mozilla certainly can't hurt. Maybe it could even draw some more people to the project, who knows? But just closing your doors to the media and saying "Go away!" will just divert some much needed attention away from your cause.
As for suing / flaming, that won't do any good. As somebody already mentioned in this thread, the reporters have Constitutional protection, as long as they didn't know it was false. As for flaming, well...go ahead. But let's remember people, this is their job, and besides, nobody's perfect. Hell, I'm sure Slashdot has taken a rumor / false story all the way as well.
--
You know, as much as I like the idea of ROMNet and the fact that I can get some of those rare NES games I could never find, something like this isn't helping to push peer-to-peer file sharing any. The existing file-sharing programs, major ones like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet, are just being pointed to as yet another mode for piracy by the respective industries, and in many cases, it's simply unwarranted. I think that peer-to-peer file-sharing is a great idea and it should be pursued, but I think if more programs such as the ones mentioned pop up, they will just be unfairly demonized as havens for pirates.
--
"Do I think that Gnutella will move in where Napster stopped? I personally don't, the reason being that Gnutella requires you to set up a direct connection with an individual you've never met."
:)
And what, with Napster, you can set up direct connections with all of your friends?
"So where the dangers surrounding Napster, regarding viruses and child molesters, were moderately nebulous, they're going to be very severe with Gnutella."
Did I read that right? Child molestors and viruses pose a threat to Napster? Good freaking God! As for Gnutella, viruses might pose a threat, but that's why there are these things called virus scanners.
Well, judging by the interview, if this guy is indeed a key technologist for the SDMI, then there's nothing to fear
--
"Spammers could complain that it's governmental prior restraint to filter their unsolicited ads."
.gov addresses. But then again, these are spammers we're dealing with here :)
Actually, this is a Good Thing(tm). I say, let the spammers have a go at it. Because if they do, then there's going to be a lot of angry people complaining about paying X amount of dollars for the delivery of those e-mails for porn and marketing scams. And if that happens, then maybe the government will be clued in on the problem of spam, and outlaw it outright.
But then again, a lot of spammers claim to filter out
--
"The Net provides a marketplace of cultural exchange, benefiting new artists and to music lovers. It's not simply a matter of theft, but of creating an environment in which culture thrives."
Jon, here's something for you to chew on, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
That aside, this is a matter of theft Jon. Yes, Napster is a great promotional tool. Yes, Napster has helped a lot of artists get recognized. And that's all fine and dandy. But your candy-coating everything with "It's net culture!" doesn't work. The musicians need to get paid like the rest of us, and while some people buy the music they get off Napster, others don't. But let me guess, they're only participating in this "culture" thing you rant on, right?
"Maybe music-lovers could pay a flat fee to access music sites which share revenue with entertainment companies and artists. Perhaps artists can use the Net to begin selling their work directly to fans and the public. Maybe debit and other forms of transactional software can be used to charge small amounts of money for downloaded music, using some system that measures time or data. Maybe college students could pay a fraction of a cent for each song they downloaded on college sites, the overall volume generating a fair amount of revenue for artists and corporations."
And maybe I could stand on my roof and shout nonsense. You know, with the methods you advocate above (excluding one), it's still in a zero-sum situation. Sure, we're selling CDs in MP3 format online, and that's fine and dandy. It's just too bad that the same amount of money will still be going to the record companies. And that's a Bad Thing(tm), correct Jon?
We all know that record companies are getting a really big piece of the pie, but there's nothing that we, the music fans, can do about it. Sure, we can all take up the Jon Katz rallying cry of "Culture! Free music! Culture!" But that's just plain bullshit. What good is downloading music off Napster going to do? It's not going to make the industry think "Hey, we're screwing these musicians in the ass," it's going to make them say, "See, nothing but pirates out there!" If anything is going to happen, it's going to happen due to action from the musicians themselves. They're the ones who are directly affected by the industry's ways. They're the ones getting pennies on the dollar. If more artists could speak out and say "Look what they're doing to us," I think it would work better than just having a bunch of Katz groupies downloading music off Napster, because at least it's genuine first-hand experience. Just downloading music under the shield of "Culture!" is going to do more harm than good IMHO.
--
"I'd pay a micro-payment to yank banner ads from websites I frequent."
Ummmm, why would you pay to remove banner ads from webpages when you can use the Junkbuster Proxy or Guidescope (among other methods for removing banner ads) for free (in both senses)?
--
"Is it really so unreasonable of the artists to object to someone distributing their work without their consent?"
Absolutely not. I've always held the belief that, if you really like what you hear, you should plunk down the $15 bucks to get the CD. As a matter of fact, I'd wholeheartedly support the RIAA if they were to implement a Napster-like system, where you either pay-per-download, or you pay a monthly subscription fee for unlimited downloads. That way, you know your favorite musician is getting some funds back from it, and you know you're not going to get stuck with files that sound horrible, or are mislabeled. But IMHO, rather than working with the technology, the RIAA is more intent on killing the technology.
"It's not just a matter of money. Napster is just the internet age equivalent of a record bootlegger: they make money of someone elses work, without the artist's consent."
Incorrect analogy. Napster merely makes the files available for download, they're not the ones ripping entire CDs. Additionally, AFAIK, Napster is making money because of their ease of finding music, be it legal or illegal. Do you think that, just because some people out there use Xerox machines to copy copyrighted material to give away, we should come down on Xerox like a load of bricks?
--
Image only? You remember when Napster booted all of those users at the requests of Metallica and Dr. Dre, correct?
"I'm not a lawyer, and I don't feel like weeding through the technical jargon in 'Fair Use'...Basically, as long as you own the original CD, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the music *EXCEPT* duplicate it for someone else, no matter WHAT the means. Buying a CD basically gives you an unlimited 1-person license for your own use. (The RIAA would have you believe differently, but that's the way it is.)"
According to 17 USC 107, fair use is granted for the following purposes:
Criticism / Commentary
News Reporting
Teaching
Scholarship / Research
IANAL, but it seems that, according to 17 USC 107, if I wanted to make a copy of my Nirvana CD so I could listen to it in the car, I can't even do that, because "personal use" doesn't fall in the above categories.
--
[ puts on asbestos suit ]
Here we have the Court of Appeals giving Napster an appeal, and yet Jon Katz wasted all that time composing yet another rambler of an editorial talking about the Napster aftermath (before it happened).
Even worse...I wasted my time reading it!
*rimshot*
[ removes asbestos suit ]
--
Napster is not out of the water yet. Just because the Court of Appeals gave them a reprieve doesn't mean that Napster still can't get shut down by the RIAA. I could get into the philosophical reasons why Napster shouldn't be shut down, but a lof of you know them already.
I've already heard the standard cries of "I'm gonna burn my Metallica CDs!" and "I'm gonna send a flaming e-mail to Hilary Rosen!," but c'mon, what effect will that have? So what if you burn your Metallica CDs, you already bought them, right? And so what if you flame Hilary Rosen? You're just giving them ammo to use against you ("Look at this Napster user, see their blatant disregard for us?!?"). That is why I suggest that the planned boycott for the RIAA should go on. If you're going to send a message to the RIAA about how you feel about Napster, hit them where it matters most: their wallets.
And yes, I realize that this may give the RIAA more reason to cry "They're downloading music from Napster, so now I can't afford my new Lexus!" and the such. But then again, they're going to latch onto whatever they can squeeze sympathy for their side out of.
And if this doesn't make the RIAA listen up, I don't know what will.
Further reading:
www.boycott-riaa.com
www.riaaboycott.org
Napster Buycott (that's not a typo :))
RIAA Member List (for the boycotting, duh!)
RIAA Contact List (let your voice be heard!)
--
"Why would you be so against advertisers gathering data about you based on various criteria and applying it to ads presented to you? Wouldn't you want to see ads that reflect your interests?"
:) But seriously, I wouldn't mind giving a bit of info about my interests so I could get some targeted advertising, but advertisers want to know your personal information, rather than your personal interests. And with all of the brouhaha going on over Toysmart.com selling off their customer databases, Aureate making ad-supported spyware, and Doubleclick linking surfing habits to personal info, who would blame someone for wanting to keep their personal info private?
Well, that doesn't affect me, as I filter out all of those annoying banner ads
--
Call me cynical, but politicians tend to pay more attention to money than they do about the worries of an 18 year old. Do you think some politician is going to give a shit about some teenager who likes music distribution, compared to the RIAA's "worries" and pockets of money? Maybe if the politicians gave two shits about the problems and concerns of the 18 to 24 crowd, maybe more people would vote. But the Almighty Buck(tm) reigns supreme.
--
"Microsoft may be the leader now, but once Mozilla is complete (only a few more months to go!) then things are going to change."
In a few months you say? Well that's all fine and dandy that Mozilla will be out in a few months. It's just too bad that Microsoft could also have a release of IE in a few months as well, that could theoretically blow Mozilla out of the water. Like the saying goes, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Mozilla has a long way to go before it can match up with IE.
"But what's the real reason Mozilla is going to save the web from being dominated by Microsoft? 2 things actually: embedded apps, and AOL."
Goodie, just what I want in a browser...more bloated features, and a tie-in to AOL! I want a browser that does the job for me, quicky and efficiently. Maybe the Mozilla team should worry about making the browser work efficiently, before they start worrying about adding a Winamp-style skinning ability and AOL tie-ins to the browser.
If you think Mozilla is going to save us all from Microsoft based on those two things, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. Mozilla is losing more and more ground to Microsoft every day, and in a few months, when Mozilla does finally come out, they still have to play catchup to Microsoft, and everyone else who made IE their standard browser, and modeled their pages for IE.
--
...at least IAM / IAS (whatever) didn't have B1FF design their website.
--
Well, that'll really make those top secret black helicopters stealth then, won't it? :)
--
Yes, one exists. Here's the link...
http://wilkes1.wilkes.edu/~millartj/debu nk
--
This is the same thing those morons at stopnapster.com advocate. Simply put, this isn't going to work.
...or...
The fact that the MP3s are the same length as their CD counterpart helps some, but what is going to stop someone from either...
- Playing the song during the download, hearing the annoying sounds, and aborting the download...
- Downloading the entire song, hearing the annoying sounds, deleting the offending file, and then warning others saying "Don't download anything from 'RIAALackey,' the files are corrupted!"
These people are claiming to have fooled some people, and I wouldn't doubt that. But remember, Napster has about 20 million users now. Think you can fool 20 million people? Ain't gonna happen.
--