I think that the death of MusicCity and Kazaa is being prematurely reported. However, that's not the point. The point is that there will NEVER be a point when the P2P networks go away. Napster had a fatal flaw in that it indexed the files on a central server. Kazaa only makes an entry point, as the searches are handled by decentralized nodes that are actually user computers. Gnutella has neither of these issues. As for more people shrugging their shoulders, I'm finding more are actually turning to the P2P. That's partially publicity (bad press is still press) and partially because the RIAA is pissing so many of them off.
The RIAA can sue themselves blue in the face, but the Pandora's box is open now. For every heavy-handed tactic they pull, more people boycott their products and turn to the P2Ps. That demand makes better and better P2Ps, thus it would be a losing battle. Eventually, RIAA will have to play nice, or they will cease to be.
Ok, assuming the software allows multiple downloads of the same file (why wouldn't it, it's not writing the file, just reading it), how could this have an effect? You start 20 downloads at.5kps...that's 10kps you've eaten up. Gee, I'm not gonna notice that on my screen and kill the requests. If you keep at it, I ban you from downloading anything. Ok, then you spoof IDs or hit me from multiple sources. Fine, I report you to the company for a violation of terms of service. You're now banned from getting on that network.
Or let's say I'm on Gnutella, which you can't be banned from. I still see your IP you're coming from, and even if you use multiple systems I can still see which net you're on. Spoof an IP? No biggie, I still got a log on you. I'll just keep blocking IPs for each multiple attack that comes in. Eventually, you'll find you can't hit my system.
All legality aside, cause we know this is really walking the dark side, this plan of the RIAA is going to have two neat effects. One, it's gonna make the P2P networks stronger as they adapt to defeat the threat. Two, it makes the RIAA look like the cartel bullies they are. When are they gonna quit fighting the customer and start working with us to find a solution that makes everyone happy?
Exactly my point, and well said. I have a major beef with corporate interests like Microsoft and RIAA who use their vast financial backing to twist legal regulations to force the consumer to play their game and their game alone, then charge inappropriate amounts for their product. Hence why I do not buy RIAA-sponsored music and avoid buying MS software unless it ships on a computer I purchase (can't avoid that one). I use StarOffice at home, for example, and it serves my purpose.
That's why it's really important when an organization like the German parliment backs an alternative product. It shows that consumers do still have a choice, and if we actually banded together to vote with our wallets and our ballots we can put an end to the corporatized legislation.
Technologically speaking, we're the cream of the digital era crop. However, when you get into laws, policies, and general perception, the United States seems to be getting more and more short sighted. Corporate interests and "the bottom line" have more influence than what's best for the industry and the people.
That one misguided law has opened the door for more just like it, and no one seems willing to stand in the doorway to stop it. The governement shouldn't be influenced by companies, it should be influenced by people. Companies should be doing what's right for their customers, not what's right for their checkbooks and customers be damned. However, both groups have been acting like they forgot that in the end they answer to us the consumers and citizens. We make them, and we can break them if there's enough of us.
Until we actually stand up and quit letting the corporations buy laws that screw our rights, we are going to be behind and we're going to stay behind. You're right, we made the digital era. We're also in danger of watching it pass us by.
If this actually happens and succeeds, techies worldwide will have something they can show their bosses during debates on whether they should switch to Linux or not. I really hope it works, for the future of Open Source. Even if it fails, it won't set us back that far. We simply review what went wrong and figure ways to improve it.
Gotta agree with one poster though, the EU seems to be more "modern" in terms of the digital era than America. They seem to actually be ruled by common sense and a willingness to look at the big picture. This is of course in contrast to the USA's approach of "oh, a big company says it's good then it must be good".
So, does this mean that if someone detects an unauthorized attempt on their system and immediately tracks it back to an RIAA computer ("hmm, this is coming from Universal's offices") they have the full and legal right to launch a DOS/Nuke/Smurf attack and blow that entire network off the Net in order to protect their personal property?
Talk about your legal conundrums. Thanks to the shortsight of the RIAA, we've got another can of worms to argue about on/.:)
Regardless of their "failure" to get this passed, that doesn't mean they won't quit trying. Of course, the word's out now on what they tried to do. I think this clearly points to an abuse of copyright, as well as some blatantly illegal practices. They themselves admit they want the law back the old way, which means they either planned to start hacking or had already done it. What's it gonna take to get the DoJ to wake up and realize the companies that make up the recording industry are a worse trust as Microsoft?
Nope, Javascript (or at least their flavor of it) is a part of Microsoft's DHTML "standard". Do a search for JScript on their site and you'll find all sorts of goodies about it. I should know this since I do JScript programming.
MS is actually trying to cripple Java, which has absolutely no relation to Javascript. The name "Javascript" was put on Netscape's scripting language to cash in on the brand. Microsoft hijacked it into DHTML and JScript.
But that's a whole 'nother story, and midly offtopic for here.
Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?
Oh, but then MS would have to guarantee you don't do that by tying the OS license to the hardware config. Change too many components, and you have to beg them to let you keep using their software...
I read those articles and the comments. Found the one case that matched what I was looking for. You mentioned it yourself, one case of an unopened box auction getting cancelled.
What I was wondering was if there was more than that one isolated case. Everything else looks like "I bought it with the computer, I should be able to sell it separate" OEM nonsense. One case of legitimate incorrect cancellation does not a case for MS=Evil make.
I think it's completely valid for this comment session. We're talking about MS abusing its power to keep auctions from happening. I want to know, first hand, how many times it's happened to people legitimately. I feel I'm justified in bringing this up, because it can lend a whole different tone to this discussion.
I know that a Microsoft related question may be way off base here, but I want to get a feeling for this.
How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).
In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.
Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
It were these accounts that reported for the first time that planes had had hit the tower, that the towers had fallen, that there there were likely to be few survivors in the rubble.
Um, the news that the towers had fallen wasn't a first on the net. The TV stations had their cameras trained on the towers and broadcast it live for everyone to see. Same with the second plane hitting. Let's keep the credit where it's due, ok?
What the net did provide was eyewitness accounts and various viewpoints. It was a more personal kind of reporting, but it didn't "scoop" the news networks that much. Yes, the Internet did prove itself useful for disseminating that kind of information. The rest was merely recycled stuff from the majors.
Ok, the author did point out that other applications set their own extensions, but is this really some sign of MS conspiracy or just another example of anti-MS hysteria? There are plenty other ways MS controls mindshare in their software, most notably bundling their own version of an application.
Yes, changing the file type can be a bit daunting to the average user, but the average user is also the one who uses IE and WMP without bothering to look for alternatives. They don't care if a file opens with app A or app B, just as long as it opens. MS preys on that by providing a quick and easy way to open files. Those of us who do care know how to change the file extensions.
Can we, just for once, not go with every bit of anti-MS hysteria that comes down the pipe and focus instead on the real issues? The article started out good, then dropped into an almost laughable Lone Gunmen style conspiracy argument.
From the article: Muris will instead increase the staff working on privacy issues by 50 percent, according to sources familiar with the chairman's plan. The extra people is to enable the commission to police more Web sites and bring lawsuits against violators.
He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail.
Sounds like he's more interested in taking action than messing with bureaucratic legislation that will get thumped apart by lobbying forces. It may not be the best course, but it's better than doing nothing. It's also most assuredly better than saying he's laxing up on privacy issues at all. I know we're all eager to scream and yell about privacy laws or the lack thereof, but I interpreted the article in a different light. Sometimes it's best to analyze a statement before going off half-cocked on how the world's going to hell.
At the risk of being redundant, someone needs to mod up one of the mentions about the UK version not having copy protection at all. How in the blue blazes is that supposed to prove anything at all? Here's the scenario:
I live in US, and I buy the CD. *shudder...just remember it's hypothetical* I try to rip it, I fail. I go to the p2p and download the entire CD. I then promptly burn that and distribute to all my friends who want the CD to play on their computers. I also distribute the mp3's to those who want them for their MP3 players.
This experiment will only prove how far people will go to circumvent copy protection, not how well the protection works. In a worst case scenario, the artists *shudder again* lose money because people quit buying the copy protected CDs and instead get unprotected copies from their friends.
Once again, RIAA, wrong answer. To quote Anne Robinson, you are the weakest link, goodbye.
I made the mistake by saying in an earlier post that teenagers would probably not notice the copy protection. As you might notice, a lot of people were quick to shoot me down on that one. I think this is going to be the first real test of the copy protection. Can't wait to see the backlash when those kids spend their hard earned allowance on a CD that they can't burn, and then promptly throw a massive fit (and we all know how teenagers can tantrum *eg*)
I don't know. It looks like they actually had the idea down and patented it before anyone else came along. That legally makes it their IP. The wording of the patent seems to demonstrate it's thought through and well explained, unlike a lot of "vague" tech patents like patenting a mouse click on the web. It also doesn't look like there's much of a case for prior art here either.
I have a feeling TiVO's gonna settle out of court on this one. It'd be a hard pressed fight to win.
It's all in how the patent's worded, of course. If the patent is too broad, then it'll get killed by prior art. If it's too narrow, TiVO will get off scott free. However, the fact that Motorola licensed the technology indicates there may actually be some merit to this patent debate. There's also the fact that Pause tried to talk to TiVO about it before taking it to court.
It's highly likely this is a legitimate complaint, so remarks like "oh I think I'll go patent/insert basic idea here/ and make a money" may be inappropriate. It really all depends on the wording in the patent. If they really did get a good patent on the idea, then they should be allowed to defend it. The idea of pausing live TV is still pretty innovative, and thus if the technology is described with no vague BS, then the patent dispute is valid.
Unless Microsoft was holding a gun to someone's head saying, "you'll implement WMA in your MP3 player or we won't sign your driver," it's simply smart business
Heh...you wanna bet that won't happened or hasn't already happened? That's the MS way. Look at their latest licensing agreements.
However, you're right about the distribution monopoly as well. The industry is desparately fighting to maintain its monopoly and extend it into the digital world. Should music be free with no compensation to the artists? No, but on the other hand I want that $20 a CD I spend to go primarily to the artists and second to the industry, not the other way around. Until that day happens, I won't buy CDs except for the rare occassion when I want to support a band. Now, if they go with uncopyable CDs, I won't buy them at all. WMA be damned, I won't support an extension of MS's illegal monopoly and RIAA's unethical one.
If this isn't a clear cut case of Microsoft using its monopoly power to cut into and eliminate competition from other markets, I don't know what is. We're not talking software anymore, we're talking the future of music distribution. This should not and could not happen if our antitrust laws have any power. Allowing WMA to be used here is definitely the wrong answer, as it allows Microsoft to say "Oh look, now you need a Windows machine with our Media Player to listen to tracks on your computer". If it was a general standard, this wouldn't be so bad. However, M$ is not known for general standards. They're known for embrace, extend, extinguish.
I'd rather deal with them then some other popular types of advertising. Several people already mentioned the flash animations that are becoming popular. I find those horrid, for it's like trying to read a book and having the words obscured. I want to know where the ads are and choose whether to look at them or not, not have them crammed down my throat. Any ad that obscures text automatically gets my negative attention.
Rant mode off for a second, I think jumpthroughs are actually good in that it gives a solid measurement of who's looking at an ad. You can use jumpthrough instead of click-thru metrics to set ad rates, much like in TV or radio or print. I would rather see online advertising go that route rather than getting more annoying in the hopes of a clickthru that won't happen (like those darn flash anims).
Ok, if they're serious about using hackers, here's some good things to do.
1) Use those DDoS attacks on the Taliban and the terrorists. Block out their news, their proproganda. Stick it to their networks so they can't share information. At the same time reroute any pro-fundamentalist web pages to sites that promote more moderate approaches and demonstrate the stupidity behind radicalism. Show them the truth, at the same time you're snuffing out the lies.
2) Backdoor their servers and use the unauthorized access to swipe important details of operation. Set up sniffers on any communications you can for intelligence. I'm sure the CIA is already working on that one:)
3) Any crypto breakers should offer their services in some fashion, since they're going to be needed.
Things not to do:
1) Attack any and all Islam/Arab related sites. Keep in mind the enemy we're fighting, and don't drag innocents into it.
2) Deface sites not related to the struggle based on the idea of "making a message". That plays into their hands.
If the government is willing to sanction the good things, like everyone said this could improve the image of "freelance security experts". Heh.
If a good majority of the consumer base (read as teenagers again) really is this wired, then maybe it bodes better than I thought. Just remember to vote with your wallet if you want ideas like this to go in the toilet where it belongs. Thanks guys for all the great replies.
Step 3: Some company with enough chutzpah finally gets the stones to stand up to the RIAA and explain exactly how the DMCA violates previous precedents of fair use in its enforcement, and why their software is perfectly fair. Large legal battle ensues, with the preferred ending being the final repeal/revision of the DMCA into something that can't be used by companies or industry associations (artist's association my butt, they should drop the extra A) to intimidate others.
And how would you feel if you wanted to make legitimate copies of tracks on a CD you owned (like making a special party CD) and you couldn't? Kinda makes you feel gypped, hmmm? Especially when the next day you look out there on the Net and some enterprising soul figured out how to crack the encryption and got the music out there. Now you have to download an illegally distributed copy of a song just to exercise your legal right to fair use. See the problem, folks?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the death of MusicCity and Kazaa is being prematurely reported. However, that's not the point. The point is that there will NEVER be a point when the P2P networks go away. Napster had a fatal flaw in that it indexed the files on a central server. Kazaa only makes an entry point, as the searches are handled by decentralized nodes that are actually user computers. Gnutella has neither of these issues. As for more people shrugging their shoulders, I'm finding more are actually turning to the P2P. That's partially publicity (bad press is still press) and partially because the RIAA is pissing so many of them off.
The RIAA can sue themselves blue in the face, but the Pandora's box is open now. For every heavy-handed tactic they pull, more people boycott their products and turn to the P2Ps. That demand makes better and better P2Ps, thus it would be a losing battle. Eventually, RIAA will have to play nice, or they will cease to be.
Hypothesis time:
.5kps...that's 10kps you've eaten up. Gee, I'm not gonna notice that on my screen and kill the requests. If you keep at it, I ban you from downloading anything. Ok, then you spoof IDs or hit me from multiple sources. Fine, I report you to the company for a violation of terms of service. You're now banned from getting on that network.
Ok, assuming the software allows multiple downloads of the same file (why wouldn't it, it's not writing the file, just reading it), how could this have an effect? You start 20 downloads at
Or let's say I'm on Gnutella, which you can't be banned from. I still see your IP you're coming from, and even if you use multiple systems I can still see which net you're on. Spoof an IP? No biggie, I still got a log on you. I'll just keep blocking IPs for each multiple attack that comes in. Eventually, you'll find you can't hit my system.
All legality aside, cause we know this is really walking the dark side, this plan of the RIAA is going to have two neat effects. One, it's gonna make the P2P networks stronger as they adapt to defeat the threat. Two, it makes the RIAA look like the cartel bullies they are. When are they gonna quit fighting the customer and start working with us to find a solution that makes everyone happy?
Exactly my point, and well said. I have a major beef with corporate interests like Microsoft and RIAA who use their vast financial backing to twist legal regulations to force the consumer to play their game and their game alone, then charge inappropriate amounts for their product. Hence why I do not buy RIAA-sponsored music and avoid buying MS software unless it ships on a computer I purchase (can't avoid that one). I use StarOffice at home, for example, and it serves my purpose.
That's why it's really important when an organization like the German parliment backs an alternative product. It shows that consumers do still have a choice, and if we actually banded together to vote with our wallets and our ballots we can put an end to the corporatized legislation.
Technologically speaking, we're the cream of the digital era crop. However, when you get into laws, policies, and general perception, the United States seems to be getting more and more short sighted. Corporate interests and "the bottom line" have more influence than what's best for the industry and the people.
That one misguided law has opened the door for more just like it, and no one seems willing to stand in the doorway to stop it. The governement shouldn't be influenced by companies, it should be influenced by people. Companies should be doing what's right for their customers, not what's right for their checkbooks and customers be damned. However, both groups have been acting like they forgot that in the end they answer to us the consumers and citizens. We make them, and we can break them if there's enough of us.
Until we actually stand up and quit letting the corporations buy laws that screw our rights, we are going to be behind and we're going to stay behind. You're right, we made the digital era. We're also in danger of watching it pass us by.
If this actually happens and succeeds, techies worldwide will have something they can show their bosses during debates on whether they should switch to Linux or not. I really hope it works, for the future of Open Source. Even if it fails, it won't set us back that far. We simply review what went wrong and figure ways to improve it.
Gotta agree with one poster though, the EU seems to be more "modern" in terms of the digital era than America. They seem to actually be ruled by common sense and a willingness to look at the big picture. This is of course in contrast to the USA's approach of "oh, a big company says it's good then it must be good".
So, does this mean that if someone detects an unauthorized attempt on their system and immediately tracks it back to an RIAA computer ("hmm, this is coming from Universal's offices") they have the full and legal right to launch a DOS/Nuke/Smurf attack and blow that entire network off the Net in order to protect their personal property?
/. :)
Talk about your legal conundrums. Thanks to the shortsight of the RIAA, we've got another can of worms to argue about on
Regardless of their "failure" to get this passed, that doesn't mean they won't quit trying. Of course, the word's out now on what they tried to do. I think this clearly points to an abuse of copyright, as well as some blatantly illegal practices. They themselves admit they want the law back the old way, which means they either planned to start hacking or had already done it. What's it gonna take to get the DoJ to wake up and realize the companies that make up the recording industry are a worse trust as Microsoft?
Nope, Javascript (or at least their flavor of it) is a part of Microsoft's DHTML "standard". Do a search for JScript on their site and you'll find all sorts of goodies about it. I should know this since I do JScript programming.
MS is actually trying to cripple Java, which has absolutely no relation to Javascript. The name "Javascript" was put on Netscape's scripting language to cash in on the brand. Microsoft hijacked it into DHTML and JScript.
But that's a whole 'nother story, and midly offtopic for here.
Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?
Oh, but then MS would have to guarantee you don't do that by tying the OS license to the hardware config. Change too many components, and you have to beg them to let you keep using their software...
uh oh, too late...that's already happened.
I read those articles and the comments. Found the one case that matched what I was looking for. You mentioned it yourself, one case of an unopened box auction getting cancelled.
What I was wondering was if there was more than that one isolated case. Everything else looks like "I bought it with the computer, I should be able to sell it separate" OEM nonsense. One case of legitimate incorrect cancellation does not a case for MS=Evil make.
I think it's completely valid for this comment session. We're talking about MS abusing its power to keep auctions from happening. I want to know, first hand, how many times it's happened to people legitimately. I feel I'm justified in bringing this up, because it can lend a whole different tone to this discussion.
I know that a Microsoft related question may be way off base here, but I want to get a feeling for this.
How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).
In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.
Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
It were these accounts that reported for the first time that planes had had hit the tower, that the towers had fallen, that there there were likely to be few survivors in the rubble.
Um, the news that the towers had fallen wasn't a first on the net. The TV stations had their cameras trained on the towers and broadcast it live for everyone to see. Same with the second plane hitting. Let's keep the credit where it's due, ok?
What the net did provide was eyewitness accounts and various viewpoints. It was a more personal kind of reporting, but it didn't "scoop" the news networks that much. Yes, the Internet did prove itself useful for disseminating that kind of information. The rest was merely recycled stuff from the majors.
Ok, the author did point out that other applications set their own extensions, but is this really some sign of MS conspiracy or just another example of anti-MS hysteria? There are plenty other ways MS controls mindshare in their software, most notably bundling their own version of an application.
Yes, changing the file type can be a bit daunting to the average user, but the average user is also the one who uses IE and WMP without bothering to look for alternatives. They don't care if a file opens with app A or app B, just as long as it opens. MS preys on that by providing a quick and easy way to open files. Those of us who do care know how to change the file extensions.
Can we, just for once, not go with every bit of anti-MS hysteria that comes down the pipe and focus instead on the real issues? The article started out good, then dropped into an almost laughable Lone Gunmen style conspiracy argument.
From the article:
Muris will instead increase the staff working on privacy issues by 50 percent, according to sources familiar with the chairman's plan. The extra people is to enable the commission to police more Web sites and bring lawsuits against violators.
He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail.
Sounds like he's more interested in taking action than messing with bureaucratic legislation that will get thumped apart by lobbying forces. It may not be the best course, but it's better than doing nothing. It's also most assuredly better than saying he's laxing up on privacy issues at all. I know we're all eager to scream and yell about privacy laws or the lack thereof, but I interpreted the article in a different light. Sometimes it's best to analyze a statement before going off half-cocked on how the world's going to hell.
At the risk of being redundant, someone needs to mod up one of the mentions about the UK version not having copy protection at all. How in the blue blazes is that supposed to prove anything at all? Here's the scenario:
I live in US, and I buy the CD. *shudder...just remember it's hypothetical* I try to rip it, I fail. I go to the p2p and download the entire CD. I then promptly burn that and distribute to all my friends who want the CD to play on their computers. I also distribute the mp3's to those who want them for their MP3 players.
This experiment will only prove how far people will go to circumvent copy protection, not how well the protection works. In a worst case scenario, the artists *shudder again* lose money because people quit buying the copy protected CDs and instead get unprotected copies from their friends.
Once again, RIAA, wrong answer. To quote Anne Robinson, you are the weakest link, goodbye.
I made the mistake by saying in an earlier post that teenagers would probably not notice the copy protection. As you might notice, a lot of people were quick to shoot me down on that one. I think this is going to be the first real test of the copy protection. Can't wait to see the backlash when those kids spend their hard earned allowance on a CD that they can't burn, and then promptly throw a massive fit (and we all know how teenagers can tantrum *eg*)
I don't know. It looks like they actually had the idea down and patented it before anyone else came along. That legally makes it their IP. The wording of the patent seems to demonstrate it's thought through and well explained, unlike a lot of "vague" tech patents like patenting a mouse click on the web. It also doesn't look like there's much of a case for prior art here either.
I have a feeling TiVO's gonna settle out of court on this one. It'd be a hard pressed fight to win.
It's all in how the patent's worded, of course. If the patent is too broad, then it'll get killed by prior art. If it's too narrow, TiVO will get off scott free. However, the fact that Motorola licensed the technology indicates there may actually be some merit to this patent debate. There's also the fact that Pause tried to talk to TiVO about it before taking it to court.
/insert basic idea here/ and make a money" may be inappropriate. It really all depends on the wording in the patent. If they really did get a good patent on the idea, then they should be allowed to defend it. The idea of pausing live TV is still pretty innovative, and thus if the technology is described with no vague BS, then the patent dispute is valid.
It's highly likely this is a legitimate complaint, so remarks like "oh I think I'll go patent
Unless Microsoft was holding a gun to someone's head saying, "you'll implement WMA in your MP3 player or we won't sign your driver," it's simply smart business
Heh...you wanna bet that won't happened or hasn't already happened? That's the MS way. Look at their latest licensing agreements.
However, you're right about the distribution monopoly as well. The industry is desparately fighting to maintain its monopoly and extend it into the digital world. Should music be free with no compensation to the artists? No, but on the other hand I want that $20 a CD I spend to go primarily to the artists and second to the industry, not the other way around. Until that day happens, I won't buy CDs except for the rare occassion when I want to support a band. Now, if they go with uncopyable CDs, I won't buy them at all. WMA be damned, I won't support an extension of MS's illegal monopoly and RIAA's unethical one.
If this isn't a clear cut case of Microsoft using its monopoly power to cut into and eliminate competition from other markets, I don't know what is. We're not talking software anymore, we're talking the future of music distribution. This should not and could not happen if our antitrust laws have any power. Allowing WMA to be used here is definitely the wrong answer, as it allows Microsoft to say "Oh look, now you need a Windows machine with our Media Player to listen to tracks on your computer". If it was a general standard, this wouldn't be so bad. However, M$ is not known for general standards. They're known for embrace, extend, extinguish.
I'd rather deal with them then some other popular types of advertising. Several people already mentioned the flash animations that are becoming popular. I find those horrid, for it's like trying to read a book and having the words obscured. I want to know where the ads are and choose whether to look at them or not, not have them crammed down my throat. Any ad that obscures text automatically gets my negative attention.
Rant mode off for a second, I think jumpthroughs are actually good in that it gives a solid measurement of who's looking at an ad. You can use jumpthrough instead of click-thru metrics to set ad rates, much like in TV or radio or print. I would rather see online advertising go that route rather than getting more annoying in the hopes of a clickthru that won't happen (like those darn flash anims).
Ok, if they're serious about using hackers, here's some good things to do.
:)
1) Use those DDoS attacks on the Taliban and the terrorists. Block out their news, their proproganda. Stick it to their networks so they can't share information. At the same time reroute any pro-fundamentalist web pages to sites that promote more moderate approaches and demonstrate the stupidity behind radicalism. Show them the truth, at the same time you're snuffing out the lies.
2) Backdoor their servers and use the unauthorized access to swipe important details of operation. Set up sniffers on any communications you can for intelligence. I'm sure the CIA is already working on that one
3) Any crypto breakers should offer their services in some fashion, since they're going to be needed.
Things not to do:
1) Attack any and all Islam/Arab related sites. Keep in mind the enemy we're fighting, and don't drag innocents into it.
2) Deface sites not related to the struggle based on the idea of "making a message". That plays into their hands.
If the government is willing to sanction the good things, like everyone said this could improve the image of "freelance security experts". Heh.
If a good majority of the consumer base (read as teenagers again) really is this wired, then maybe it bodes better than I thought. Just remember to vote with your wallet if you want ideas like this to go in the toilet where it belongs. Thanks guys for all the great replies.
Step 3: Some company with enough chutzpah finally gets the stones to stand up to the RIAA and explain exactly how the DMCA violates previous precedents of fair use in its enforcement, and why their software is perfectly fair. Large legal battle ensues, with the preferred ending being the final repeal/revision of the DMCA into something that can't be used by companies or industry associations (artist's association my butt, they should drop the extra A) to intimidate others.
At least I can dream, right?
And how would you feel if you wanted to make legitimate copies of tracks on a CD you owned (like making a special party CD) and you couldn't? Kinda makes you feel gypped, hmmm? Especially when the next day you look out there on the Net and some enterprising soul figured out how to crack the encryption and got the music out there. Now you have to download an illegally distributed copy of a song just to exercise your legal right to fair use. See the problem, folks?