I think as long as there is demand for recording devices there will be a supply. There is no ways they can stop people recording stuff, if you can decrypt it to watch it you can decrypt it to record it.
I'm not so sure. This is really the work of MPAA and cable companies, CES fought it quite some time IIRC. But as far as 'if they can decrypt it...etc', maybe not. Where the MPAA and cable group wants to do is encryption TO THE MONITOR as well, not just to the set top box. Hence, tossing in a vcr, etc, won't work once the analog set and those connections are gone. They're thinking long term this time...they want to get TOTAL control. They're smart enough to know it'll take time before all analog tv's/vcr's are gone, but then they'll have what they originally wanted from the betamax case that the supreme court wouldn't give them. It's basically a slap in the face of the 9 supremes as much as anything else. I certainly hope this type of thing is included when dcma cases gets to the supreme court, where they undoubtedly will. (add it to the foot-in-mouth thing the sdmi group did threatening to sue academic papers)
Sit and talk with a lawyer. But, some thoughts to keep in mind:
See if the individuals who run it can be held liable
R.I.C.O (civil) - This could be considered a conspiracy to defraud.
Unfair and deceptive business practices. This in some states can get attorney fees and multiple damages.
Standard IANAL disclaimer, but I'd sure agree with the advice to see one for a number of reasons. First, if you sign, you're obviously waiving your rights under whatever your initial contract was, which is exactly what they want. If you don't sign, they are still bound by the initial agreement. Secondly, if they don't pay (and don't sign) then you should have legal basis to collect...be nice to see a collective of all/ some of the owed web site sending out a collection agency to get their money. Third, since they want you to sign, it appears they're not bankrupt, maybe not that 'rich', but want to continue as a business. (And you weren't asked to particiate as a shareholder, nor did you agree to be forced to involuntarily 'invest/fund' their company I'd guess, which is in essence what you'd be doing. Though you might all seek a piece of the company, suitably large, for any debt forgiveness. Quite legal:) ). (Though I don't think RICO comment quite fits...that's basically raceteering, is it not? might not fit here. maybe). But definitely see the lawyer. And you might contact a number of the sites to collectively seek legal advice. The 'group' may make a lawyer more receptive (more to collect, more services, more pay), and it'd reduce the legal fees in seeking that initial consultation and advice to see what you have in the way of groups to pursue legal action. People always say 'class action' which takes large numbers and approval by a court, but is there any reason all site can't be plaintiff represented by the same counsel? It's essentially one action...has to be cheaper than all of you having to pay individually.
This system could result in huge lawsuits against monitor/TV manufacturers. Just picture the GlamCo sees 2 million HDTVs/Monitors when Joe Hacker hacks one. The content producers now deactivate all of the monitors/TVs sharing GlamCo's key. Can you imagine their support people saying "No, your TV is not broken. We deactivated it because a 13-year old in Norway reflashed an EPROM. I'm sorry... but our new models still work. Would you like to purchase one now for $899?" I smell lawsuits ready and waiting to happen...
I'd normally agree. But you can be sure that in the law that forces encryption of data between devices (set top box to monitor, computer to monitor, etc), there will be an exemption from any and all liability. So much for the supposedly 'public' and 'free' airways. Free and public as long as you let someone else control what you can and can't see. This one sucks and just another MPAA/Jack Valenti type special. (imho, just another bought and paid for, but not very brite individual...just one with lots of political connections who learned 'truth justice and the american way' as a good ole boy with LBJ and that crowd, so you know how much THOSE words mean to them.)
This ruling should open the door for all the companies paying Rambus royalties to cease all payments. Between that and the (begin sarcasm) massive income generated by RDRAM, (end sarcasm) Rambus should run out of LawyerCash pretty soon.
If I recall, some of their financial relases indicated some really MASSIVE budgeting for legal expenses (and seem to recall warnings that if they didnt' prevail, their earnings projections might a little...uhhhh....off. I was glad to see the ruling. Rambus got greedy by trying to force rambus memory like a childish bully... saying they'd charge much larger royalties on ddr then sdram..something many said they didn't rightfully have in the first place. I find it interesting...esp. with rambus arrogant anouncement of their intentions upfront. It's a little like a slap suit...for money and nuisiance. Thankfully the likes of a Micron had their own little slap-back attitude. Hopefully they'll prevail. 2002 earnings should be interesting. If they don't win on appeal, there goes minimally sdram maybe ddr? royalties. Intel, whith whom they're no longer bedmates will be seilling a lot more pentium 4's by then... for motherboards that'll have chipsets supporting ddr at that point, and rambus memory will still be massively overpriced compared to ddr as who's going to buy it??. Hopefully the lawyers are billing regularly, or they'll have to hire their own lawyers to make sure they get paid....just a little very biased (thanks to rambus) opinion. I wouldn't want to be responsible for rambus share price ESPECIALLY if they've put their money into lawyers and not research (be interesting comparison to see what got more for 2001). Those class action lawyers for stockholders are probably salivating already.
Mundie shot himself in the foot numerous times in that speech. It can be torn apart. An example:
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain.
In a word. kerberos. MS took instead of PUBLIC standard, 'forked' it (so to speak, but modifying it and making the change any but part of the original open standard). This lead to 'incompatible versions of programs', 'product instability' of other products, and 'hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future'...all but their own of course, the public/and therefore the customers/be damned. Did it also not come out that in the trial that there were times code was changed to intentionally 'break' competitor software (applications)? Again, see above. If anything, I feel this actually supports the breakup of MS. They use the proprietary standards to thwart competition in the app area. It's good from the OS/app vertical market, of which they are the monopoly. And that's just one paragraph. What they've done is NOT good for the software market (EXCEPT for MS itself) in the applications area, which is 99.99 percent of the software companies. Hell, and that's only one paragraph. Of course he mentioned the bad business model of 'free expecting to be paid later' hmm...Explorer comes to mind. What his speech does day, if one reads between the lines, is that MS must thing Linux is ready for prime time. That's quite an endorsement. It's a little like announcing vaporware a year before you have a product because someone announces a product you think is a good idea. You keep the competitor at bay while you write it or buy it (never having thought about it in the first place).
My feeling of the positive aspect of the open source model is it means applications will compete on MERIT, not be shoved down your throat. If an app vendor enahnces/corrects an OS under GPL, then every vendor, once that's included, will have the same benefit for their application products. (And applications can remain proprietary, if they like. But they'll have to be good. no BSOD every other keystroke and service/support, knowing a customer DOES have the option of going elsewhere.) It's all about control... MS wants it 100%. OSS give the control back to the customer/consumer/business client... the place it belongs. Even those that are strictly the profit driven software houses, it's sill a BIG plus for them IF they have a product that people want to purchase and IF someone doesn't invent a better mousetrap and put it under GPL, at which point they probably failed on that innovation, research, or service that MS seems to speak of so frequently.
However, the difference between the bomb and the program is of accountability. When a bomb goes off, law enforcement agencies tend to notice. They can find evidence within the wreckage and begin to track down the criminal who will then be held accountable. While the criminal may have learned to make the bomb from the book, the law (rightfully IMHO) places greater weight upon their actions than the books information.
This scenario does not occur on the web. A DVD cannot call 911 when someone tries to run DeCSS on it. It is currently impossible to hold individual users accountable for actions performed entirely on their home PC. This is why the law is suggesting to take the accountability one level higher and stop the actual program from entering the users hands, where all practical sense of accountability is lost.
I'd respectfully disagree with the analogy. First, I disagree that a DVD should care about calling 911 if it found itself running under DeCSS. It should only care if it found itself being copied and distributed. Just 'use' under DeCSS shouldn't be illegal. Using the comment of 'taking the accountability one level higher' circumvents the entire premise of our Constitution and freedoms. In other words, taking your theory one step further, you could say it's illegal to have a bottle of liquor in your home, because if you drink it and drive, you may break the law. The courts, even with severe criticism at times, have upheld the rights to disseminate that 'how to make a bomb'. Even the justice dept lawyer saying things like 'what if someone developed a program to shut down this or do that'...etc. In similar circumstances, using the bomb example, courts have upheld that right to publish and disseminate and not permitted the government to restrain that. The internet (which IMHO, really has nothing to do with DeCSS), may be new, but it's really just a faster means of distributing information than some town crier yelling 'here's how to make a bomb', or somebody in the 70's going to the library and checking out a copy. Speed of distribution should have no impact on law. Secondly, and frightfully, the attempts seem to reach much further than DeCSS. That's the goverment and MPAA seeming to believe that 'intent' has no part in violating a law, that simply having the ability to violate a law makes something illegal. It almost leads to the 'thought police', something usually only penned by writers, not lawyers. While I agree with the gov't lawyer, some speech can be restrained by the government (ie, yelling fire in a theather), he seems to want to take it to 'thinking of yelling fire in a theater' is also subject to prosecution. What about taking a sign in a theather that says 'fire', but not displaying it. Is that illegal too? What if I carry a book that on page 235 has the word 'fire' in it into a theather, is one subject to prosecution because one COULD yell fire? This seems a path not to be taken by the courts, yet they are being asked to do just that by MPAA and justice dept. lawyers. I'm ALL FOR prosecution of copyright infringement by copying and distribution works... be it on the internet, someone on a street corner, or in the back pages of all those magazines classifieds...IF there is actual distribution. I see NO reason, however, for the constitution to be overturned because the MPAA wants a means that's the 'easy out out' as far as preventing copyright violations. If the courts readily took 'expediancy' as preferential to 'law', then we'd all be carrying governement id's (easier to identify), we'd all be finger printed and dna sampled at birth (easier to catch criminals), etc. (and that bottle of sctoch in a cabinet wouldn't be there because it WOULD be illegal to have, since one COULD drive drunk...intent or not. Gee, they should've had these lawyers back in prohibition... maybe we'd still that one on the books. And THAT was a constitutional amendment.) As for the arguments from the gov't and mpaa...weren't these the same ones pretty much used with the VCR and with Xerox copiers? just different times, different mechanism, but just the same.
Microsoft has just put themselves in a VERY good legal position for dealing with residents of Maryland.....
I think you're right that what they've tried to do. Interestingly, most companies aren't as arrogant and actually place in their agreements that some states may grant rights contrary to the agreement, such as in warranty clauses. But this one's interesting, in that IIRC a license is a strange animal in legal terms, and 'agreeing' to it, you can give up a lot of what one would think were legal rights, irregardless. What's interesting is that MS's.NET strategy is going after big business. I'd think if anyone was really going to look at this as suspect, it's going to be the lawyers from those same large companies that MS is looking to get their recurring revenue from the.NET. I think it's part of the arrogance that makes then think they can do anything, and all will follow. They may be right. Though given alternatives, they could be betting the ranch and not just a paddock or two. It does make an interesting publicity thing though. While they want UCITA passed everywhere (in it's vanilla form, of course), it seems state legislatures might get a little testy if this is put in their face... they usually have this 'states rights' things down pretty good, and aren't fond of 'outsiders' saying how they're constituants are gonig to be handled. If UTICA passes elsewhere, I get a strange feeilng there'll be a lot of similar 'maryland' type markups in the law before it goes to any vote.
There is a serious issue underneath all of this. With so much vital information protected by crypto, what are the ethics of providing skeleton keys to the general public that may be used to open up private medical records, or manipulate bank transactions, or tamper with electronic markets? There will always be a lag time between publishing the attack and implementing a method of repelling the attack. Do we just accept "digital anarchy" to accompany the latest news from the academy? Should the researchers provide their information to some authority before providing it to the general public?
While I understand the comment, one of the great 'freedoms' we've had (at least until the DCMA) is the fact that knowledge hasn't been a crime, but only when taking the knowledge to actually commit a crime, does it become unlawful. A similar analogy would be saying that because so much money is in banks, it should be unlawful to publish the workings of a time lock. Or back in the 60's when there were attempts to prohibit publications which included things such as 'how to make a nuclear device' (IIRC). Actually, I'm surprised the RIAA hasn't attempted to go back and say all vinyl that used phonograph records was not reall a memium to play music, but an encryption device. Forever in the future, all turntables will have to be licensed by the RIAA and taxed. 'Associations' have some fair latitude to exist in law, but at some point they run afoul of anti-trust laws. I'm surprised someone (especially the independant artists who've been vocal) haven't attempted to shoehorn that in the current environment. It does seem that case could be made both the RIAA and MPAA have past some of those boundries and are really seeking monopoly control vs. what they say to the press (as in the jack and hillary show... two people I don't feel are that bright, but parrot the lines they're given very well.)
At this point, I'd think they'd HAVE to publish. It's too much a risk of going down the road of obliterating academic freedom. That can't be allowed to happen. (Though if someone from the press received any copy by accident, could that not be published, ala pentagon papers? ) Then again, a simple reading by a congress person who's anti-DMCA on the house floor would suffice too, since they can't be prosecuted (time for hearings on the DMCA and academic freedom. Inclusion of the paper into the record would not be out of line.)
But with all the control over the participants, maybe the IRS should be looking into this. It seems they, instead of participating in a challange, are so controlled, they look at lot more like uncompensated employees to me. The group had exclusive control, dictated direction, use, output, and seemingly 'owns' all data and results. Very controlled. Sounds like they're all (how many thousands downloaded that??) owed compensation and full benefits. Damn. there goes their budget for the next few years. hehe.
It's amazing. The ones who should be yelling about this the most are those that fund some of the supporting organizations...RIAA and MPAA. Talk about short-sighted greed. As the analogy used the screenwriter conversing with someone in germany and they're in hot water. The music and motion picture industry habitually use the 1st amendment when criticized. Wait until they wake up and find they are calling their lawyers to be bailed out because they publish a clip of their movie or song in the internet in an advertisement and find it violates a law in 'name that country', and it got viewed there. We just spend 11 days with US folks in China. People here regularly criticize them on human rights issues. During their little uprising years ago, the fax is one thing that got information out, and now it's the internet. What happens the next time, when somebody their communicates with someone here via email discussing... say... Tibet. Undoubedly that'd be illegal there, probably considered terrorist activity. That person here would have no protection from their laws, it seems. Freedom of speech is rare, and the 1st amendment wouldn't protect anybody, nor would the other amendments. Take a reporter covering the next yugoslovia. He communicates with a dissdent. In that country it's treason to do so. So what's to protect the reporter? It's amazing places like France would support something like this too, with their uproar over the 'mysterious' eschelon. Talk about cooperation of gov't agencies. FBI wan't to tap somebody here? Can't get warrant under us law? get their friends in the brit agencies to say 'that person violated our laws, tap his communications and rummage through his house'. And any recourse against the foreign agency? I can't see where that's protected. For the reverse, someplace wants access to their citizen. Can't get it under their laws, call the FBI and say 'we need you to send us a warrant for suspicious activity under one of your laws'. And it's on its way. If it's an international treaty, I see little that allows our courts to get involved in any way to protect the individual. These idiots need to take off the blinders. The article is right-on in saying one needs to ask the 'what ifs'.
I think that it's the advertisements, not the DJ's that cost a lot more when they are aired over the Internet. The AFTRA contracts are for those doing the commercials, voice overs, etc. When they make the advertisement, the person gets not just a 'payment' for doing the ad, but they make money based on the number of times the ad is aired, etc. Evidently, if it goes over the Internet, they get triple the normal payment for times aired. It does seem a little excessive, to be honest. All of a sudden, somebody's ad budget goes to hell. IIRC after hearing this, at least a couple of stations would like to get back to streaming if they can figure a way to keep the commercials from being streamed. Then again, I could be wrong.
And what about my apartment? What guarantee do I have that the guy I'm renting from will give me a place to live for the rest of my life? HELLO. Why do you think they call it RENT? You have it, the rental period ends, it's done.
The analogy doesn't quite work. And it brings to the forefront the 'problem' with rented software. If you have to move your apartment, you can take your furniture with you. It doesn't have to be replaced because you move nor do you have to pay to have it all reupholstered, etc. If you've rented, say, a word processor with proprietary formats, and you no longer have your lease without notice, all you have is gone. It's the downside both the consumer and the seller need to take into consideration. They can (a) have you over a barrell by forcing you to pay whatever they want one one has significant penetration in a market. In that sense they have the customer over the barrell. On the other side, if a company does go under or for some reason can no longer provide keys, at what point are they liable for all existing documents (in this instance) and the customers ability to access them? (Maybe the ca. power situation has awakened some, but how many companies have good disaster recovery plans? If they burn down, etc, where is their liability if they can't provide keys for products they've 'sold'. There's a lot more at stake for a company at that point than just physical plant problems if they have a disaster situation. Corporations, though not enough, pay through the nose for good disaster plans or they can be out of business in days if not hours. Software companies, to my knowledge, have never had to face the situation from this perspective.)
As the article points out, in America, the dish antennas all point south. Now, unless this new service is using a huge array of dish antennas themselves, to aim their signal at only people who live south of them, that means that their signal will be in sight of anybody *north* of them. As the satellite's signals aren't very strong by the time they arrive here, it won't take much to interfere with it. Further, Northpoint is trying to claim this technology for use in "rural" areas.... While I'm not fond of the Powers That Be, they're right - Northpoint *is* trying to make a naked grab for their chunk of the spectrum.
I was waiting for the comment on those who lived NORTH of the transmitters. The whole thing seems fishy to me. (And patents? on what? I can't think of any patents on this other than possibly things like very specific directional antennas, yet that limits reception possibilities. And if it's dispersion of the signal, then you hit the interference situation.) The guy forgot something with that 'the lightbulb doesn't block out the start'. What he forgot was that it if you add a few more lightbulbs, it DOES block the stars.. and stars have a little more power than your average satellite at 24000+ miles. Interesting they have a 'give us free spectrum or we take our patents (our ball) and won't let anyone else play'. There should be competing services in the same type of service... even if it would be something like cable, where franshises are determined by a city. (Not that I like that, but at least there's more than one operator.) I'd say let them take their ball and run, OR make them completely liable for any interference + damages. (Since it doesn't seem to be tested yet?) Amazing something they think is so valuable, yet they demand free spectrum. hmm.
I wonder: the analogy to the 1960s may work, but should ex-hippies really be the target audience? Are they the ones running all the servers nowadays?
They may not be running the actual servers, but more likely running the IT depts or the whole company. (being of the 60's... where the hell did I put those paisley bellbottom pants!)
Here in the US, we have defamation (i.e. libel and slander) laws that can sometimes cover that. I am not a lawyer, but here's my rundown of how this works. For brevity's sake, I'll use "Alfred" to refer to the person who is claiming "Beth" has violated copyright. As a result, Beth loses access to systems.
IANAL either, but what you say makes sense. I wonder, however, at what point potential punitive damages could some into play vs. just actual damages. What amount of 'due diligence', for lack of a better known term (like I said, IANAL), would/should the company be required to do before that company can, under the guise of the DMCA, demand an ISP terminate a users account? At what point might that be considered negligant? This is the type of action I could see the ACLU becoming interested in, and they DO have the resources for long and lengthy litigation.
A double standard? I think it's more about using the scum-of-the-earth: people who'd betray their own people, family, friends. There are Russians like that, and the US gov't will use them, but I don't think there's any particular love or admiration for them.
I think you found the operative word.... scum. Let's face it, these are not the people you take home to visit the folks or to meet your sister. We have to deal with their (and every other country's) scum and they find ours in the woodwork. And whether it's allies or not (like pollard spying for isreal or when the french intelligence bugged air france planes years ago), they're all scum, and I wish they'd be treated appropriately when caught..and that doesn't me released.
This is kind of distrubing, if you ask me. I certainly do not want my ISP looking through my connections and determining what should and shouldn't be transmitted.
What seems even more of a concern was that this could be installed regionally at point the net aggregates connections. However, if I was running a piece of the backbone, I wouldn't walk away from this, I'd be running like hell. I can't believe the potential liablity if this screws up and 'stops' the wrong transmissions. They may not care much about privacy, but they do give a damn about their money. And it could be more than civil. Are there criminal statutes regarding interfering with someone's computer, interfering with the transmissions, etc? One cannot break a law saying they're prohibiting the breaking of laws. The old vigilante method of justice was outlawed many year ago.
It is not, as is claimed a ban on the use of the word. This is a very restrictive action in law, designed to protect the goodwill of companies trading from ripoff merchants. If this happened in the physical world, there would be no complaint, so why should the internet be any difference? It's just the natural evolution of the internet - as it comes under the same regulation as the rest of human endeavor, companies will be protected at last. I really can't see any problem here.
IANAL...BUT... I can see a significant problem here, in that it would seem the judge's ruling was way too broad. The magazine 'Referee' is a generic term, about/for 'referee's'. While there may be some confusion between their name and ereferee.com to require some consideration, it seems completely inappropriate to ban any use of the term 'referee' in their name, description, or index. An analogy would be to say that becuase someone like Computer World might have a trademake, that nobody else would ever be able to use the word 'Computer' in the name of a publication about computers. I can't believe this wouldn't be overturned in appeal. I can't believe the judge wouldn't be admonished, but then again, I don't expect that to happen. The only word I know that WOULD be precluded in a similar circumstance is 'Olympics', and THAT is only because of specific legislation dealing with that word only. I have a problem with the logo confict as well, but this judge seems so far off the mark that it wouldn't even be worth discussing. (But I believe the referee organzations themselves would have prior use of white stripes and whilstles.. and if they publish so much as a newsletter, they out to tell referee magazine to start paying the royalties.)
understand he has to protect it or lose it, but did he originally coin the terms "SSH" and/or "Secure Shell"??
If he did, on the SSH, it appears his request is pretty reasonable, particularly if there is confusion. (And, if he originally attempted to protect it when he first realized the use, not necessarily just when he found there was confusion.) The part of the letter that I do question is 'secure shell'. The letter has the little old (R) on ssh, inticating registered trademark, and he indicates the when/where it was registered. However, it seems 'secure shell' is being swept into that as well, and I see no indication of its registration.
These sniffer boxes are just online policemen, but unbiased because they are automated. Nobodies freedom is being curtailed but the lawbreakers.
And you've just stated the problem. Much of law is based upon intent. That's determined by REAL policemen, prosecutors, courts, and juries (grand and otherwise) every day. You sniffer determines intent and guilt without any of the above. In the U.S, the Supremes might have a tad bit of a problem. (And If I had an ISP, I sure wouldn't want the liability in THAT case.) I agree that the internet is not above the law. I also agree that the law, those who enforce it, are equally not above the law when it comes to the internet.
That's the simpliest solution. Uh oh, I forgot, then those behind the software wouldn't get their money. But then again, isn't it for the good? It may sound like a troll, but it makes as much sense logically as what's proposed. After all, if there's no music, the problem described is solved.
I'll respond on the basis you are sincere about your comments. There are two areas that need to be addressed based upon your post. The first is the technological, the second is the subjective basis of the censorship you wish to support.
From the technical aspect, you seem to indicate that it 'shouldn't take too much work' to work out the bugs. Using your example to differentiate between legitimate artwork like DiVinci's David vs. troll goat porn. Not having seen troll goat porn, but having seen David, how do you make the distinction? You ban a site because something scanning it determines what... body parts? David and Venus have the body parts you wish to ban, just generally not in the same context of the porn. Should it be possible to develop scanning that can in someway actually determine those 'parts' are within a picture, how do you determine which picture they are, technically. (Besides, every time the software ran up against a piece by Picasso, it'd probably bomb.) As for the original post, they're talking about music downloads. They certainly can't ban a site because some music title with a download happens to be present.. so what? they download the file and check the digital contents to see if it matches some supported music catalog? It's been shown that one can alter bits within a music download and yet there is not enough change to be noticed by the listener. So you check length? checksum some total? That doesn't work. And even if you could, are you going have every recording ever made of every piece of work and with every arrangement? One copyrighted piece of music sung with 3 instruments in no way is going to be identified the same as the same piece of music sung by one person with 3 backup singers and the berlin philoharmonic orchestra. Also, back to the porn issue, you do realize that includes text as well as pictures. IS there going to be a way for the system to determine porn stories from someone's thesis on language and it's demise in the 20th and 21st century. based upon what. Words? Those could be the same. We definitely have problems here.
From the subjective censorship side. You made the distinction between legitimate artwork like DiVinci's David and goat troll porn. That's your conclusion, and valid for you. Of course, you do realize that there will be many who consider the statue of David as porn. IS that for you to decide or them? Since you've made that subjective decision already, I'm guessing you believe that it's art. For you and your family, you can make that decision. Is it wise to leave that to somebody else? You say there's no 'need' to see porn. I don't disagree. Someone said there's no 'need' to see Friends, and I'd also agree. But isn't that up to you? If THEY (whoever controls this mechanism) feel there's no NEED to see works by DiVinci, are you still in agreement? Isn't that your decision? What happens when THEY feel there's no need to see a posting critical of a public official, would you agree? What if a country wanted to block news of internal problems because it'd look bad to the world. You would agree? I happened to be disgusted in how some arrogant members of the press handled coverage of the Gulf War (yet wasn't at all displased when they were captured). Was there a 'need' to see coverage? Could THEY have decided no? I totally feel, whether some were arrogant or not, there WAS a NEED to see the coverage, but that's my opinion. What's yours? Oops, then again, neither of our opinions will be necessary since it'd make no difference if THEY were controlling things.
This doesn't even get into the legal aspects. But it doesn't seem to work both because of technology or ethics. It seems to be a knee-JERK reaction for an expediant method to protect what... the top 100 or so of some corporations current music. (And I'm all for copyright protection, don't get me wrong. But it needs to be protected without infringing on everyone else.) Are YOU going to protect those who are mistakenly blocked? You don't feel that matters? If they block what you see as art, that's acceptable? I don't necessarily disagree with what you see as desirable, but I do see blinders on as to what it actually ends up doing. But that's your opinion, and you have a right to it... at least for now. Who knows once the software is installed (as even your message, containing such words as 'porn' 'bomb making' and 'illicit drugs' could easily have your words banned. I'm all for stopping crime, but this isn't the way.
Of course they aren't going to let you stay connected 24/7, especially if they are small and watch their port /
user ratio closely. Unless you pay them enough to cover the cost of the line and the equipmenent to terminiate
it, they have no reason to provide you service.
I work for a smallish ISP which provides ISDN access. $25 for one channel, and $40 for two. Our costs for
the line and equipment come out to a little under $100 a port. We do provide dedicated access, for a price that
covers this type of service, and the local ISPs you've tried probably do too.
Good comment nesta. I used to go through an ISP that let me have my domain, it was dial-up (before I went ISDN), and they not only allowed 24/hr connection, but promoted it. You had a dedicated line/modem on their end. BUT... you didn't pay 21.95.. you PAID for the service. And service you got, including the fact that if you had a tech problem or whatever, you emailed and got a response in minutes, not days, or phone calls were answered and you got fixed...NOW. The consumer bemoaning the poor service and loss of the local, dedicated, reponsive mom&pop isp and the terrible support of the huge ISP's are the same ones who want all of the above for 21.95 or even 9.95 and switch to those ISP's in an instant. It doesn't happen.. and won't happen at that price point. One just doesn't stay in business.
I admit I had a preconceived notion because of the press on the XFL beforehand. (And some, think it was on ESPN radio? were LIVID about the whole XFL thing). But you do make a couple good point, and some of the big negatives were press related. I didn't get to see much, but it was football. And the comment about a QB sitting down rather than getting sacked.. I'm glad to here there was a comment on that. (I'm not real thrilled to see a QB in the NFL 'slide' when he could've picked up an extra 7-8 yards just cause he's not to get hit.) Seeing the cheerleaders doesn't bother me:), long as it doesn't interfere with the game. And oh gee, I must've missed the guy getting a butt massaged in the locker room. But if I complain on that, I'm sure I'll be called a sexist. (Though if it gets to the point we're watching some guy try and figure out how to get his cup back in his jock, we've probably gone too far.) They DO need to keep cameras out of the way though, and a helmut cam is ok, but watching another helmut on the line is well... so much fun. And someone said it's about college level? Hey, sometimes college ball is a lot more enjoyable than an NFL game. Next time I'll probabaly actually carve out time to really the whole game. As long as these guys play ball and let it be the entertainment, it just may be worth the time.
The creator of the site has fallen into the common misapprehension that excluding 10% of visitors is acceptable. 10% doesn't sound like a lot, till you realize that it's 10% of a very large number of potential visitors...
IT's that 10% that's important as well, irregardless of the comment by the guy that 'it's for intranet and MS directed and not waste time...etc' (paraphrased). In my case I have clients in financial services/insurance industry. True, the normal users use whatever is there, which mostly means MSIE these days, as it's on the machine. It's the EXECUTIVES who get the new gear, and have demands such as 'I first had netscape, PUT ON NETSCAPE, I'm not about to learn something new or change', usually rather emphatically stated. And it's done, pronto. If this guy is selling 'just' intranet services, they'd be out the door before they got very far as soon as an exec found he couldn't use HIS prefered browser, the rest of the employees be damned. This aspalliance.com better learn who they're selling to and that in come cases the customer DEMANDS that they want, not just ready to sit back and take whatever crap someone gives them (which admitedly has gone on too long in this industry.) Old line executives in the REAL money businesses (not the failing dot coms) not only expect that they request, they DEMAND it. I certainly wouldn't have those clients if I pulled a stunt like that, and neither would aspalliance.com. (Maybe that's why i'm still working and most of my clients see this whole 'asp' thing as something they want no part of.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure. This is really the work of MPAA and cable companies, CES fought it quite some time IIRC. But as far as 'if they can decrypt it...etc', maybe not. Where the MPAA and cable group wants to do is encryption TO THE MONITOR as well, not just to the set top box. Hence, tossing in a vcr, etc, won't work once the analog set and those connections are gone. They're thinking long term this time...they want to get TOTAL control. They're smart enough to know it'll take time before all analog tv's/vcr's are gone, but then they'll have what they originally wanted from the betamax case that the supreme court wouldn't give them. It's basically a slap in the face of the 9 supremes as much as anything else. I certainly hope this type of thing is included when dcma cases gets to the supreme court, where they undoubtedly will. (add it to the foot-in-mouth thing the sdmi group did threatening to sue academic papers)
Standard IANAL disclaimer, but I'd sure agree with the advice to see one for a number of reasons. First, if you sign, you're obviously waiving your rights under whatever your initial contract was, which is exactly what they want. If you don't sign, they are still bound by the initial agreement. Secondly, if they don't pay (and don't sign) then you should have legal basis to collect. ..be nice to see a collective of all/ some of the owed web site sending out a collection agency to get their money. Third, since they want you to sign, it appears they're not bankrupt, maybe not that 'rich', but want to continue as a business. (And you weren't asked to particiate as a shareholder, nor did you agree to be forced to involuntarily 'invest/fund' their company I'd guess, which is in essence what you'd be doing. Though you might all seek a piece of the company, suitably large, for any debt forgiveness. Quite legal :) ). (Though I don't think RICO comment quite fits...that's basically raceteering, is it not? might not fit here. maybe). But definitely see the lawyer. And you might contact a number of the sites to collectively seek legal advice. The 'group' may make a lawyer more receptive (more to collect, more services, more pay), and it'd reduce the legal fees in seeking that initial consultation and advice to see what you have in the way of groups to pursue legal action. People always say 'class action' which takes large numbers and approval by a court, but is there any reason all site can't be plaintiff represented by the same counsel? It's essentially one action...has to be cheaper than all of you having to pay individually.
I'd normally agree. But you can be sure that in the law that forces encryption of data between devices (set top box to monitor, computer to monitor, etc), there will be an exemption from any and all liability. So much for the supposedly 'public' and 'free' airways. Free and public as long as you let someone else control what you can and can't see. This one sucks and just another MPAA/Jack Valenti type special. (imho, just another bought and paid for, but not very brite individual...just one with lots of political connections who learned 'truth justice and the american way' as a good ole boy with LBJ and that crowd, so you know how much THOSE words mean to them.)
If I recall, some of their financial relases indicated some really MASSIVE budgeting for legal expenses (and seem to recall warnings that if they didnt' prevail, their earnings projections might a little...uhhhh....off. I was glad to see the ruling. Rambus got greedy by trying to force rambus memory like a childish bully... saying they'd charge much larger royalties on ddr then sdram..something many said they didn't rightfully have in the first place. I find it interesting...esp. with rambus arrogant anouncement of their intentions upfront. It's a little like a slap suit...for money and nuisiance. Thankfully the likes of a Micron had their own little slap-back attitude. Hopefully they'll prevail. 2002 earnings should be interesting. If they don't win on appeal, there goes minimally sdram maybe ddr? royalties. Intel, whith whom they're no longer bedmates will be seilling a lot more pentium 4's by then... for motherboards that'll have chipsets supporting ddr at that point, and rambus memory will still be massively overpriced compared to ddr as who's going to buy it??. Hopefully the lawyers are billing regularly, or they'll have to hire their own lawyers to make sure they get paid....just a little very biased (thanks to rambus) opinion. I wouldn't want to be responsible for rambus share price ESPECIALLY if they've put their money into lawyers and not research (be interesting comparison to see what got more for 2001). Those class action lawyers for stockholders are probably salivating already.
Mundie shot himself in the foot numerous times in that speech. It can be torn apart. An example:
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain.
In a word. kerberos. MS took instead of PUBLIC standard, 'forked' it (so to speak, but modifying it and making the change any but part of the original open standard). This lead to 'incompatible versions of programs', 'product instability' of other products, and 'hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future'...all but their own of course, the public/and therefore the customers/be damned. Did it also not come out that in the trial that there were times code was changed to intentionally 'break' competitor software (applications)? Again, see above. If anything, I feel this actually supports the breakup of MS. They use the proprietary standards to thwart competition in the app area. It's good from the OS/app vertical market, of which they are the monopoly. And that's just one paragraph. What they've done is NOT good for the software market (EXCEPT for MS itself) in the applications area, which is 99.99 percent of the software companies. Hell, and that's only one paragraph. Of course he mentioned the bad business model of 'free expecting to be paid later' hmm...Explorer comes to mind. What his speech does day, if one reads between the lines, is that MS must thing Linux is ready for prime time. That's quite an endorsement. It's a little like announcing vaporware a year before you have a product because someone announces a product you think is a good idea. You keep the competitor at bay while you write it or buy it (never having thought about it in the first place).
My feeling of the positive aspect of the open source model is it means applications will compete on MERIT, not be shoved down your throat. If an app vendor enahnces/corrects an OS under GPL, then every vendor, once that's included, will have the same benefit for their application products. (And applications can remain proprietary, if they like. But they'll have to be good. no BSOD every other keystroke and service/support, knowing a customer DOES have the option of going elsewhere.) It's all about control... MS wants it 100%. OSS give the control back to the customer/consumer/business client... the place it belongs. Even those that are strictly the profit driven software houses, it's sill a BIG plus for them IF they have a product that people want to purchase and IF someone doesn't invent a better mousetrap and put it under GPL, at which point they probably failed on that innovation, research, or service that MS seems to speak of so frequently.
I'd respectfully disagree with the analogy. First, I disagree that a DVD should care about calling 911 if it found itself running under DeCSS. It should only care if it found itself being copied and distributed. Just 'use' under DeCSS shouldn't be illegal. Using the comment of 'taking the accountability one level higher' circumvents the entire premise of our Constitution and freedoms. In other words, taking your theory one step further, you could say it's illegal to have a bottle of liquor in your home, because if you drink it and drive, you may break the law. The courts, even with severe criticism at times, have upheld the rights to disseminate that 'how to make a bomb'. Even the justice dept lawyer saying things like 'what if someone developed a program to shut down this or do that'...etc. In similar circumstances, using the bomb example, courts have upheld that right to publish and disseminate and not permitted the government to restrain that. The internet (which IMHO, really has nothing to do with DeCSS), may be new, but it's really just a faster means of distributing information than some town crier yelling 'here's how to make a bomb', or somebody in the 70's going to the library and checking out a copy. Speed of distribution should have no impact on law. Secondly, and frightfully, the attempts seem to reach much further than DeCSS. That's the goverment and MPAA seeming to believe that 'intent' has no part in violating a law, that simply having the ability to violate a law makes something illegal. It almost leads to the 'thought police', something usually only penned by writers, not lawyers. While I agree with the gov't lawyer, some speech can be restrained by the government (ie, yelling fire in a theather), he seems to want to take it to 'thinking of yelling fire in a theater' is also subject to prosecution. What about taking a sign in a theather that says 'fire', but not displaying it. Is that illegal too? What if I carry a book that on page 235 has the word 'fire' in it into a theather, is one subject to prosecution because one COULD yell fire? This seems a path not to be taken by the courts, yet they are being asked to do just that by MPAA and justice dept. lawyers. I'm ALL FOR prosecution of copyright infringement by copying and distribution works... be it on the internet, someone on a street corner, or in the back pages of all those magazines classifieds...IF there is actual distribution. I see NO reason, however, for the constitution to be overturned because the MPAA wants a means that's the 'easy out out' as far as preventing copyright violations. If the courts readily took 'expediancy' as preferential to 'law', then we'd all be carrying governement id's (easier to identify), we'd all be finger printed and dna sampled at birth (easier to catch criminals), etc. (and that bottle of sctoch in a cabinet wouldn't be there because it WOULD be illegal to have, since one COULD drive drunk...intent or not. Gee, they should've had these lawyers back in prohibition... maybe we'd still that one on the books. And THAT was a constitutional amendment.) As for the arguments from the gov't and mpaa...weren't these the same ones pretty much used with the VCR and with Xerox copiers? just different times, different mechanism, but just the same.
I think you're right that what they've tried to do. Interestingly, most companies aren't as arrogant and actually place in their agreements that some states may grant rights contrary to the agreement, such as in warranty clauses. But this one's interesting, in that IIRC a license is a strange animal in legal terms, and 'agreeing' to it, you can give up a lot of what one would think were legal rights, irregardless. What's interesting is that MS's .NET strategy is going after big business. I'd think if anyone was really going to look at this as suspect, it's going to be the lawyers from those same large companies that MS is looking to get their recurring revenue from the .NET. I think it's part of the arrogance that makes then think they can do anything, and all will follow. They may be right. Though given alternatives, they could be betting the ranch and not just a paddock or two. It does make an interesting publicity thing though. While they want UCITA passed everywhere (in it's vanilla form, of course), it seems state legislatures might get a little testy if this is put in their face... they usually have this 'states rights' things down pretty good, and aren't fond of 'outsiders' saying how they're constituants are gonig to be handled. If UTICA passes elsewhere, I get a strange feeilng there'll be a lot of similar 'maryland' type markups in the law before it goes to any vote.
While I understand the comment, one of the great 'freedoms' we've had (at least until the DCMA) is the fact that knowledge hasn't been a crime, but only when taking the knowledge to actually commit a crime, does it become unlawful. A similar analogy would be saying that because so much money is in banks, it should be unlawful to publish the workings of a time lock. Or back in the 60's when there were attempts to prohibit publications which included things such as 'how to make a nuclear device' (IIRC). Actually, I'm surprised the RIAA hasn't attempted to go back and say all vinyl that used phonograph records was not reall a memium to play music, but an encryption device. Forever in the future, all turntables will have to be licensed by the RIAA and taxed. 'Associations' have some fair latitude to exist in law, but at some point they run afoul of anti-trust laws. I'm surprised someone (especially the independant artists who've been vocal) haven't attempted to shoehorn that in the current environment. It does seem that case could be made both the RIAA and MPAA have past some of those boundries and are really seeking monopoly control vs. what they say to the press (as in the jack and hillary show... two people I don't feel are that bright, but parrot the lines they're given very well.)
But with all the control over the participants, maybe the IRS should be looking into this. It seems they, instead of participating in a challange, are so controlled, they look at lot more like uncompensated employees to me. The group had exclusive control, dictated direction, use, output, and seemingly 'owns' all data and results. Very controlled. Sounds like they're all (how many thousands downloaded that??) owed compensation and full benefits. Damn. there goes their budget for the next few years. hehe.
It's amazing. The ones who should be yelling about this the most are those that fund some of the supporting organizations...RIAA and MPAA. Talk about short-sighted greed. As the analogy used the screenwriter conversing with someone in germany and they're in hot water. The music and motion picture industry habitually use the 1st amendment when criticized. Wait until they wake up and find they are calling their lawyers to be bailed out because they publish a clip of their movie or song in the internet in an advertisement and find it violates a law in 'name that country', and it got viewed there. We just spend 11 days with US folks in China. People here regularly criticize them on human rights issues. During their little uprising years ago, the fax is one thing that got information out, and now it's the internet. What happens the next time, when somebody their communicates with someone here via email discussing ... say... Tibet. Undoubedly that'd be illegal there, probably considered terrorist activity. That person here would have no protection from their laws, it seems. Freedom of speech is rare, and the 1st amendment wouldn't protect anybody, nor would the other amendments. Take a reporter covering the next yugoslovia. He communicates with a dissdent. In that country it's treason to do so. So what's to protect the reporter? It's amazing places like France would support something like this too, with their uproar over the 'mysterious' eschelon. Talk about cooperation of gov't agencies. FBI wan't to tap somebody here? Can't get warrant under us law? get their friends in the brit agencies to say 'that person violated our laws, tap his communications and rummage through his house'. And any recourse against the foreign agency? I can't see where that's protected. For the reverse, someplace wants access to their citizen. Can't get it under their laws, call the FBI and say 'we need you to send us a warrant for suspicious activity under one of your laws'. And it's on its way. If it's an international treaty, I see little that allows our courts to get involved in any way to protect the individual. These idiots need to take off the blinders. The article is right-on in saying one needs to ask the 'what ifs'.
I think that it's the advertisements, not the DJ's that cost a lot more when they are aired over the Internet. The AFTRA contracts are for those doing the commercials, voice overs, etc. When they make the advertisement, the person gets not just a 'payment' for doing the ad, but they make money based on the number of times the ad is aired, etc. Evidently, if it goes over the Internet, they get triple the normal payment for times aired. It does seem a little excessive, to be honest. All of a sudden, somebody's ad budget goes to hell. IIRC after hearing this, at least a couple of stations would like to get back to streaming if they can figure a way to keep the commercials from being streamed. Then again, I could be wrong.
The analogy doesn't quite work. And it brings to the forefront the 'problem' with rented software. If you have to move your apartment, you can take your furniture with you. It doesn't have to be replaced because you move nor do you have to pay to have it all reupholstered, etc. If you've rented, say, a word processor with proprietary formats, and you no longer have your lease without notice, all you have is gone. It's the downside both the consumer and the seller need to take into consideration. They can (a) have you over a barrell by forcing you to pay whatever they want one one has significant penetration in a market. In that sense they have the customer over the barrell. On the other side, if a company does go under or for some reason can no longer provide keys, at what point are they liable for all existing documents (in this instance) and the customers ability to access them? (Maybe the ca. power situation has awakened some, but how many companies have good disaster recovery plans? If they burn down, etc, where is their liability if they can't provide keys for products they've 'sold'. There's a lot more at stake for a company at that point than just physical plant problems if they have a disaster situation. Corporations, though not enough, pay through the nose for good disaster plans or they can be out of business in days if not hours. Software companies, to my knowledge, have never had to face the situation from this perspective.)
I was waiting for the comment on those who lived NORTH of the transmitters. The whole thing seems fishy to me. (And patents? on what? I can't think of any patents on this other than possibly things like very specific directional antennas, yet that limits reception possibilities. And if it's dispersion of the signal, then you hit the interference situation.) The guy forgot something with that 'the lightbulb doesn't block out the start'. What he forgot was that it if you add a few more lightbulbs, it DOES block the stars.. and stars have a little more power than your average satellite at 24000+ miles. Interesting they have a 'give us free spectrum or we take our patents (our ball) and won't let anyone else play'. There should be competing services in the same type of service... even if it would be something like cable, where franshises are determined by a city. (Not that I like that, but at least there's more than one operator.) I'd say let them take their ball and run, OR make them completely liable for any interference + damages. (Since it doesn't seem to be tested yet?) Amazing something they think is so valuable, yet they demand free spectrum. hmm.
They may not be running the actual servers, but more likely running the IT depts or the whole company. (being of the 60's ... where the hell did I put those paisley bellbottom pants!)
IANAL either, but what you say makes sense. I wonder, however, at what point potential punitive damages could some into play vs. just actual damages. What amount of 'due diligence', for lack of a better known term (like I said, IANAL), would/should the company be required to do before that company can, under the guise of the DMCA, demand an ISP terminate a users account? At what point might that be considered negligant? This is the type of action I could see the ACLU becoming interested in, and they DO have the resources for long and lengthy litigation.
I think you found the operative word.... scum. Let's face it, these are not the people you take home to visit the folks or to meet your sister. We have to deal with their (and every other country's) scum and they find ours in the woodwork. And whether it's allies or not (like pollard spying for isreal or when the french intelligence bugged air france planes years ago), they're all scum, and I wish they'd be treated appropriately when caught..and that doesn't me released.
What seems even more of a concern was that this could be installed regionally at point the net aggregates connections. However, if I was running a piece of the backbone, I wouldn't walk away from this, I'd be running like hell. I can't believe the potential liablity if this screws up and 'stops' the wrong transmissions. They may not care much about privacy, but they do give a damn about their money. And it could be more than civil. Are there criminal statutes regarding interfering with someone's computer, interfering with the transmissions, etc? One cannot break a law saying they're prohibiting the breaking of laws. The old vigilante method of justice was outlawed many year ago.
IANAL...BUT... I can see a significant problem here, in that it would seem the judge's ruling was way too broad. The magazine 'Referee' is a generic term, about/for 'referee's'. While there may be some confusion between their name and ereferee.com to require some consideration, it seems completely inappropriate to ban any use of the term 'referee' in their name, description, or index. An analogy would be to say that becuase someone like Computer World might have a trademake, that nobody else would ever be able to use the word 'Computer' in the name of a publication about computers. I can't believe this wouldn't be overturned in appeal. I can't believe the judge wouldn't be admonished, but then again, I don't expect that to happen. The only word I know that WOULD be precluded in a similar circumstance is 'Olympics', and THAT is only because of specific legislation dealing with that word only. I have a problem with the logo confict as well, but this judge seems so far off the mark that it wouldn't even be worth discussing. (But I believe the referee organzations themselves would have prior use of white stripes and whilstles.. and if they publish so much as a newsletter, they out to tell referee magazine to start paying the royalties.)
If he did, on the SSH, it appears his request is pretty reasonable, particularly if there is confusion. (And, if he originally attempted to protect it when he first realized the use, not necessarily just when he found there was confusion.) The part of the letter that I do question is 'secure shell'. The letter has the little old (R) on ssh, inticating registered trademark, and he indicates the when/where it was registered. However, it seems 'secure shell' is being swept into that as well, and I see no indication of its registration.
And you've just stated the problem. Much of law is based upon intent. That's determined by REAL policemen, prosecutors, courts, and juries (grand and otherwise) every day. You sniffer determines intent and guilt without any of the above. In the U.S, the Supremes might have a tad bit of a problem. (And If I had an ISP, I sure wouldn't want the liability in THAT case.) I agree that the internet is not above the law. I also agree that the law, those who enforce it, are equally not above the law when it comes to the internet.
That's the simpliest solution. Uh oh, I forgot, then those behind the software wouldn't get their money. But then again, isn't it for the good? It may sound like a troll, but it makes as much sense logically as what's proposed. After all, if there's no music, the problem described is solved.
From the technical aspect, you seem to indicate that it 'shouldn't take too much work' to work out the bugs. Using your example to differentiate between legitimate artwork like DiVinci's David vs. troll goat porn. Not having seen troll goat porn, but having seen David, how do you make the distinction? You ban a site because something scanning it determines what... body parts? David and Venus have the body parts you wish to ban, just generally not in the same context of the porn. Should it be possible to develop scanning that can in someway actually determine those 'parts' are within a picture, how do you determine which picture they are, technically. (Besides, every time the software ran up against a piece by Picasso, it'd probably bomb.) As for the original post, they're talking about music downloads. They certainly can't ban a site because some music title with a download happens to be present.. so what? they download the file and check the digital contents to see if it matches some supported music catalog? It's been shown that one can alter bits within a music download and yet there is not enough change to be noticed by the listener. So you check length? checksum some total? That doesn't work. And even if you could, are you going have every recording ever made of every piece of work and with every arrangement? One copyrighted piece of music sung with 3 instruments in no way is going to be identified the same as the same piece of music sung by one person with 3 backup singers and the berlin philoharmonic orchestra. Also, back to the porn issue, you do realize that includes text as well as pictures. IS there going to be a way for the system to determine porn stories from someone's thesis on language and it's demise in the 20th and 21st century. based upon what. Words? Those could be the same. We definitely have problems here.
From the subjective censorship side. You made the distinction between legitimate artwork like DiVinci's David and goat troll porn. That's your conclusion, and valid for you. Of course, you do realize that there will be many who consider the statue of David as porn. IS that for you to decide or them? Since you've made that subjective decision already, I'm guessing you believe that it's art. For you and your family, you can make that decision. Is it wise to leave that to somebody else? You say there's no 'need' to see porn. I don't disagree. Someone said there's no 'need' to see Friends, and I'd also agree. But isn't that up to you? If THEY (whoever controls this mechanism) feel there's no NEED to see works by DiVinci, are you still in agreement? Isn't that your decision? What happens when THEY feel there's no need to see a posting critical of a public official, would you agree? What if a country wanted to block news of internal problems because it'd look bad to the world. You would agree? I happened to be disgusted in how some arrogant members of the press handled coverage of the Gulf War (yet wasn't at all displased when they were captured). Was there a 'need' to see coverage? Could THEY have decided no? I totally feel, whether some were arrogant or not, there WAS a NEED to see the coverage, but that's my opinion. What's yours? Oops, then again, neither of our opinions will be necessary since it'd make no difference if THEY were controlling things.
This doesn't even get into the legal aspects. But it doesn't seem to work both because of technology or ethics. It seems to be a knee-JERK reaction for an expediant method to protect what... the top 100 or so of some corporations current music. (And I'm all for copyright protection, don't get me wrong. But it needs to be protected without infringing on everyone else.) Are YOU going to protect those who are mistakenly blocked? You don't feel that matters? If they block what you see as art, that's acceptable? I don't necessarily disagree with what you see as desirable, but I do see blinders on as to what it actually ends up doing. But that's your opinion, and you have a right to it... at least for now. Who knows once the software is installed (as even your message, containing such words as 'porn' 'bomb making' and 'illicit drugs' could easily have your words banned. I'm all for stopping crime, but this isn't the way.
Good comment nesta. I used to go through an ISP that let me have my domain, it was dial-up (before I went ISDN), and they not only allowed 24/hr connection, but promoted it. You had a dedicated line/modem on their end. BUT... you didn't pay 21.95.. you PAID for the service. And service you got, including the fact that if you had a tech problem or whatever, you emailed and got a response in minutes, not days, or phone calls were answered and you got fixed...NOW. The consumer bemoaning the poor service and loss of the local, dedicated, reponsive mom&pop isp and the terrible support of the huge ISP's are the same ones who want all of the above for 21.95 or even 9.95 and switch to those ISP's in an instant. It doesn't happen.. and won't happen at that price point. One just doesn't stay in business.
I admit I had a preconceived notion because of the press on the XFL beforehand. (And some, think it was on ESPN radio? were LIVID about the whole XFL thing). But you do make a couple good point, and some of the big negatives were press related. I didn't get to see much, but it was football. And the comment about a QB sitting down rather than getting sacked.. I'm glad to here there was a comment on that. (I'm not real thrilled to see a QB in the NFL 'slide' when he could've picked up an extra 7-8 yards just cause he's not to get hit.) Seeing the cheerleaders doesn't bother me :), long as it doesn't interfere with the game. And oh gee, I must've missed the guy getting a butt massaged in the locker room. But if I complain on that, I'm sure I'll be called a sexist. (Though if it gets to the point we're watching some guy try and figure out how to get his cup back in his jock, we've probably gone too far.) They DO need to keep cameras out of the way though, and a helmut cam is ok, but watching another helmut on the line is well... so much fun. And someone said it's about college level? Hey, sometimes college ball is a lot more enjoyable than an NFL game. Next time I'll probabaly actually carve out time to really the whole game. As long as these guys play ball and let it be the entertainment, it just may be worth the time.
IT's that 10% that's important as well, irregardless of the comment by the guy that 'it's for intranet and MS directed and not waste time...etc' (paraphrased). In my case I have clients in financial services/insurance industry. True, the normal users use whatever is there, which mostly means MSIE these days, as it's on the machine. It's the EXECUTIVES who get the new gear, and have demands such as 'I first had netscape, PUT ON NETSCAPE, I'm not about to learn something new or change', usually rather emphatically stated. And it's done, pronto. If this guy is selling 'just' intranet services, they'd be out the door before they got very far as soon as an exec found he couldn't use HIS prefered browser, the rest of the employees be damned. This aspalliance.com better learn who they're selling to and that in come cases the customer DEMANDS that they want, not just ready to sit back and take whatever crap someone gives them (which admitedly has gone on too long in this industry.) Old line executives in the REAL money businesses (not the failing dot coms) not only expect that they request, they DEMAND it. I certainly wouldn't have those clients if I pulled a stunt like that, and neither would aspalliance.com. (Maybe that's why i'm still working and most of my clients see this whole 'asp' thing as something they want no part of.)