Exactly why they charge, sometimes though to nose, for ACCESS to those 'prohibitivly expensive' lines. They paid for them, and are charging according to the cost to maintain and provide those lines. But the point is, that you are by no means FORCED to use these supposed 'bullies' lines. Several alternatives exist, all which cost MORE then they do..
It's not dominated by monoplolies, for one reason. Anyone, *ANYONE* can setup a highspeed connection between two access points. It doesn't make sense to say that these guys are bullies. You can buy this kind of access from *anyone* who wishes to offer it.
I could, right now, buy a fiber line from one side of the country, and start piping data from here to there. That's it. That's *OPEN*. And heck, people could start routing their IP packets over my line, no effort on their part.
This is just a story for the sake of writing a story. There is no basis behind this. PERIOD.
Easy enough. Simply include the definitions for the international root servers in all of the major bind distrobutions, just like they do with the root servers.
Yep, who invented something which ended up being used in a manner it *WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE*. I'd say that the creation of such things as Mosiac and email would have more to do with the surge in popularity of the internet more then the advent of HTTP and HTML. They could just as easily be implemented using one of *MANY* protocols that existed at the time, including gopher.
This is actually what I would envision, except allow the foriegn governments to decide. ICANN would simply point all of a given TLD to another root server, run by the target country. Couple hundred lines in the root server does the trick.
They don't want to support ICANN, great. Let 'em do it themselves. Simple solution.
This is going to be a long rant, but I think people are really forgetting what the internet *really* is, down at it's core, and how it was formed.
DNS was simply a system to provide an english name to an IP address. It was a convienience. Other countries wanted names. So the powers that RAN it at the time where nice enough to give them some top level domains for them to use. The internet wasn't some utopian design by an international committee. It's a gigantic hack. The wonderful 'World Wide Web'. It was MADE UP? Who has rights on it? Do you? Do I? Does ANYONE?
Right now I can make up my own naming scheme, create a protocol to implement it, and run it. Even hack it into a web browser, so it resolves via my naming system. Can any international orginization now demand I run it a certain way?
HECK NO.
As far as I'm concerned, any country who doesn;t want ICANN to run their domains, SET UP YOUR OWN DARNED ROOT SERVERS. Period. It could very well run this way. Now, ICANN most certainly, for their own sake, point out to these external servers, but that's common sense.
Yes, this also means that other countries could pull stuff out of their rears, and perhaps even have domains that don't resolve outside of a given country. That's great. I have phone systems in countries that cannot be reached by the outside world, becouse they simply don;t talk to eachother.
Welcome to the *real* world. The 'Internet' isn't a utopia where everyone get's along.. Technically, the internet doesn't really exist. It's a bunch on indipendant networks that all interconnect with eachother.
ICANN certainly did have the authority, which was assigned to them by the US government, which also, BTW, had the authority, as the whole DNS system was based around a US based government orginizations. How can you possibly say 'You have no right'. They have the right to do whatever they what. Don't like it? Kiss off and make your own name resolution system. Period. End of story.
So the client supports dynamic upload of new links. It's still providing *basically* the same service, really. The distrobution and searching of links..
Granted, this allows for easier distribution of pirated materials, perhaps even accidentally for the unaware, but it's right there in the configuration. Set uploads to 0.
That's not making money by poiting you there. They could just as well have poited you to the popes web page, and still made money, aka, they have no financial insentive to point you to one page, the 'pirated Sting Collective', versus a legal one, 'Live Sting concert recordings..'.
They are a public 'message board', just like a good old public corkboard outside a store. People post things on it. Being electronic, you can search those 'postings'. That's it. Plain and simple. It could just as easily be alt.links on usenet. There's nothing illegal about this.
Now, even if they where actually searching the net, it's be simular. Instead, they'd drive around, recording everyone walking on the street. If someone then does a search of that data for all females (Or males, depending on preference)that are standing on the corner in tight clothes, pulling cars over, did providing that data break the law? Heck no..
They are not doing what you say. They are pointing you to resources that they found. Period. They are not pointing you to illegal sites on purpose. They simply search their database and report the findings, legal or illegal. It's not their job to police the data that they VERY simply found.
It's like if I drove around, and took note of every individual on a street corner. You wanted to know which ones had short skirts, and where pulling over cars. It told you.
But in these cases, this is simply *NOT* the case. There is no 'buisness arangement' here to deliver. If this is illegal, then all search engines who happen to come on a 'warez' page are in the same boat. Doing a standard search, and giving out information freely to anyone who asks simply doesn't fit, or make sense. Certainly, the 'service' you describe above wouldn't cater to, oh, say the police. A stanard information 'booth', on the other hand, simply points you to where you want to go. Anyone.
They make no money *BY* pointing you there. It's not their job to police the internet that they search.
One would think that the powers that be would *WANT* this data to be legal, so they could *USE* it to locate and identify the *real* criminals.. Some people just ain't got the smarts, I suppose..
``We're not Napster,'' said San Rafael attorney Ira Rothken, who represents MP3Board. ``We don't have . . . MP3 files. We're a mere conduit, like Lycos or Hotbot. What this lawsuit is about is whether a search engine or linking service has an obligation to edit automated links. By going after us, they are basically oppressing free speech for everybody.''
That line doesn't make sense. Either they don't understand what Napster is, or they simply don't want to have the legal issues Napster has been facing to impeed their case, and hence, distancing themselves from it..
Napster is simply providing links and interacting with a nonweb client. That is the *ONLY* difference. The client technology used. In a way, if they succedd, this could be good legal citing for Napster to use in the future, using this exact argument. They do not host pirated information. They diseminate links that point to othger Napster clients..
At a grand+ a pop, there are many other better solutions. At that point, you can buy a couple of normal stripped down servers, providing a much lower-to-maintain cost then these.
The price of 1,XXX$ (as they put it) is a *VERY* poor decision on their part. This targets their systems for higher end products, which could have hardware much better suited for them for a much lower cost.
Sorry, I just ran down and got one on using any sort of sturdy building materials in the process of building a structure. This includes all attached mechanisisms which allow access to the above said structure to and from the outside of the above noted structure..
There has *GOT* to be some penalty for submitting patents without citing prior art that you can *VERY* easily prove that this individual quite literally had on his desk and certainly had prior knowledge of.
Can I just spam the PO with millions of dynamically generated patents that contain just about anything under the sun, and not be held legally liable for those requests?
Slashdot Mirror
Three of them where disqualified, most likely due to stock investments, etc.
Exactly why they charge, sometimes though to nose, for ACCESS to those 'prohibitivly expensive' lines. They paid for them, and are charging according to the cost to maintain and provide those lines. But the point is, that you are by no means FORCED to use these supposed 'bullies' lines. Several alternatives exist, all which cost MORE then they do..
It's not dominated by monoplolies, for one reason. Anyone, *ANYONE* can setup a highspeed connection between two access points. It doesn't make sense to say that these guys are bullies. You can buy this kind of access from *anyone* who wishes to offer it.
I could, right now, buy a fiber line from one side of the country, and start piping data from here to there. That's it. That's *OPEN*. And heck, people could start routing their IP packets over my line, no effort on their part.
This is just a story for the sake of writing a story. There is no basis behind this. PERIOD.
Easy enough. Simply include the definitions for the international root servers in all of the major bind distrobutions, just like they do with the root servers.
In that case, to heck with ICANN. :-P They want to charge *THAT* amount of data for a one liner in the root servers?
Yep, who invented something which ended up being used in a manner it *WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE*. I'd say that the creation of such things as Mosiac and email would have more to do with the surge in popularity of the internet more then the advent of HTTP and HTML. They could just as easily be implemented using one of *MANY* protocols that existed at the time, including gopher.
This is actually what I would envision, except allow the foriegn governments to decide. ICANN would simply point all of a given TLD to another root server, run by the target country. Couple hundred lines in the root server does the trick.
They don't want to support ICANN, great. Let 'em do it themselves. Simple solution.
Really now. I never knew that DARPA was an internation orginization. :-P
And the US doesn't need to provide DNS resoltuion for Europe either.
You *DO* know that they own and RUN the primary DNS root servers, right?
Hrm, suddenly they do matter, as long as they want someone else to provide the root DNS entries for them.
This is going to be a long rant, but I think people are really forgetting what the internet *really* is, down at it's core, and how it was formed.
DNS was simply a system to provide an english name to an IP address. It was a convienience. Other countries wanted names. So the powers that RAN it at the time where nice enough to give them some top level domains for them to use. The internet wasn't some utopian design by an international committee. It's a gigantic hack. The wonderful 'World Wide Web'. It was MADE UP? Who has rights on it? Do you? Do I? Does ANYONE?
Right now I can make up my own naming scheme, create a protocol to implement it, and run it. Even hack it into a web browser, so it resolves via my naming system. Can any international orginization now demand I run it a certain way?
HECK NO.
As far as I'm concerned, any country who doesn;t want ICANN to run their domains, SET UP YOUR OWN DARNED ROOT SERVERS. Period. It could very well run this way. Now, ICANN most certainly, for their own sake, point out to these external servers, but that's common sense.
Yes, this also means that other countries could pull stuff out of their rears, and perhaps even have domains that don't resolve outside of a given country. That's great. I have phone systems in countries that cannot be reached by the outside world, becouse they simply don;t talk to eachother.
Welcome to the *real* world. The 'Internet' isn't a utopia where everyone get's along.. Technically, the internet doesn't really exist. It's a bunch on indipendant networks that all interconnect with eachother.
ICANN certainly did have the authority, which was assigned to them by the US government, which also, BTW, had the authority, as the whole DNS system was based around a US based government orginizations. How can you possibly say 'You have no right'. They have the right to do whatever they what. Don't like it? Kiss off and make your own name resolution system. Period. End of story.
So the client supports dynamic upload of new links. It's still providing *basically* the same service, really. The distrobution and searching of links..
Granted, this allows for easier distribution of pirated materials, perhaps even accidentally for the unaware, but it's right there in the configuration. Set uploads to 0.
That's not making money by poiting you there. They could just as well have poited you to the popes web page, and still made money, aka, they have no financial insentive to point you to one page, the 'pirated Sting Collective', versus a legal one, 'Live Sting concert recordings..'.
Here's what they do in a nutshell.
They are a public 'message board', just like a good old public corkboard outside a store. People post things on it. Being electronic, you can search those 'postings'. That's it. Plain and simple. It could just as easily be alt.links on usenet. There's nothing illegal about this.
Now, even if they where actually searching the net, it's be simular. Instead, they'd drive around, recording everyone walking on the street. If someone then does a search of that data for all females (Or males, depending on preference)that are standing on the corner in tight clothes, pulling cars over, did providing that data break the law? Heck no..
It's a mad, MAD net out there.. (sigh)
They are not doing what you say. They are pointing you to resources that they found. Period. They are not pointing you to illegal sites on purpose. They simply search their database and report the findings, legal or illegal. It's not their job to police the data that they VERY simply found.
It's like if I drove around, and took note of every individual on a street corner. You wanted to know which ones had short skirts, and where pulling over cars. It told you.
But in these cases, this is simply *NOT* the case. There is no 'buisness arangement' here to deliver. If this is illegal, then all search engines who happen to come on a 'warez' page are in the same boat. Doing a standard search, and giving out information freely to anyone who asks simply doesn't fit, or make sense. Certainly, the 'service' you describe above wouldn't cater to, oh, say the police. A stanard information 'booth', on the other hand, simply points you to where you want to go. Anyone.
They make no money *BY* pointing you there. It's not their job to police the internet that they search.
One would think that the powers that be would *WANT* this data to be legal, so they could *USE* it to locate and identify the *real* criminals.. Some people just ain't got the smarts, I suppose..
``We're not Napster,'' said San Rafael attorney Ira Rothken, who represents MP3Board. ``We don't have . . . MP3 files. We're a mere conduit, like Lycos or Hotbot. What this lawsuit is about is whether a search engine or linking service has an obligation to edit automated links. By going after us, they are basically oppressing free speech for everybody.''
That line doesn't make sense. Either they don't understand what Napster is, or they simply don't want to have the legal issues Napster has been facing to impeed their case, and hence, distancing themselves from it..
Napster is simply providing links and interacting with a nonweb client. That is the *ONLY* difference. The client technology used. In a way, if they succedd, this could be good legal citing for Napster to use in the future, using this exact argument. They do not host pirated information. They diseminate links that point to othger Napster clients..
For that kinda cost, I'll just go buy a few leather jackets with my cost savings.. :-P
;-}
And if you're serving up stuff with a few dozen boxes in your bedroom, you've got a different definition of cool then I do..
At a grand+ a pop, there are many other better solutions. At that point, you can buy a couple of normal stripped down servers, providing a much lower-to-maintain cost then these.
The price of 1,XXX$ (as they put it) is a *VERY* poor decision on their part. This targets their systems for higher end products, which could have hardware much better suited for them for a much lower cost.
Hrm.. What about fraud? Technically, his application was a complete and total lie..
It takes them three years to perform a cursory search?
Sorry, I just ran down and got one on using any sort of sturdy building materials in the process of building a structure. This includes all attached mechanisisms which allow access to the above said structure to and from the outside of the above noted structure..
There has *GOT* to be some penalty for submitting patents without citing prior art that you can *VERY* easily prove that this individual quite literally had on his desk and certainly had prior knowledge of.
Can I just spam the PO with millions of dynamically generated patents that contain just about anything under the sun, and not be held legally liable for those requests?
"There autta be a law.."