Re:Katz writes about things without having 2 clues
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
Katz does not need an example of social Darwinism better than this post.
You say programming is power. But how much power do you have if the machines you program are owned by corportions?
Get a clue. Katz is right. It does not matter how hard you work or how entitled you believe you are - these corporations can impoverish you if you step outside of the parameters they have set.
You were shafted by culture? How? And has resentment and you're sense of entitlement because you're a computer jockey make you feel better than others>
You play right in their hands.
Re:Borsook is an anachronistic crybaby
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
"Borsook seems to forget that hippies and art types hijacked the city only a generation before."
Right. And then a buncha Silicon Valley geeks and dot-commers raised housing prices so high they all had to move out.
Re:Who would the tech community have coherent...
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
"Lets just take the music from musicians and not pay them anything. Lets just take from others and pay them nothing." Oh, you're talking about the recording industry? Is this off-topic, or what?
Napster is a business, not a gift from God to music lovers. Like a drug dealer, it hands out free samples (well, the myth of the drug dealer, anyway) in expectation of returning customers willing to pay. But few will be interested in paying because once you get something free, the expectation is to continue getting it for free. Besides, there are other drug dealers across the street (Scour, CuteMX, etc.) who are still giving away free samples.
Napster as a business is absurd. It will never make any money, only lose money. It will be litigated out of existence. The only enduring legacy of Napster is that it pushed the envelope on the P2P concept. VCs will lose money. That's why two Napster principals broke off, trying to create a business scheme that will make money.
I think P2P is inherently anti-business: it's about people sharing files without middlemen, without central servers. Dot-com business people, in general, are losing money on business ventures. I believe this is a good thing. Maybe scads of them will abandon the Internet. Not likely, but maybe.
Gnutella is the exception - created by developers, it has no pretension toward business and untold riches: it is software for people who want to share things, be those things copyrighted or not. Thankfully, business can't get a handle on this. Nor can the RIAA.
This post makes perfect sense. The real reason the FBI wants to sniff email is not to catch child pornographers, but to pin down political opponents. If you don't believe this, read a little history: they followed around Martin Luther King, anti-war activists, socialists, etc. It's no secret that J. Edgar Hoover was a rightwing fanatic. Waco is a perfect example. This is a rogue agency, capable of mass murder. We're supposed to trust them? I don't think so.
Uh, hello? These megacorporations are truly international, they do not respect national borders or cultural heritage - it is their intention to sell the same products on a global basis. They don't care if you are Asian, German, Dutch, African, etc. - so long as you have money. Also, increasingly, the principals of these corporations are international. This is a global thing, not strictly American.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this virus is a VBS file. It can't do any damage - in fact, it does no damage as it is - only if you open the file and execute the script. So, what's the big deal?
Gnutella users: continue, ignore this hype, and just make sure you know what you're doing before you open a file.
So, if my name was Barbie, it would be illegal for me to use it? Please explain. Oh, yes, of course, the name is trademarked, which essentially means that there is only one Barbie allowed on the web - a plastic doll worth billions of dollars. All other instances of Barbie are invalid, even punishable. Even if my name is Barbie and I put my resume on that page, or a picture of my dog.
Tell me this isn't crazy.
Probelm is, these large corporations have colonized and are now in the process of domesticating the Internet. It's a huge digital shopping mall they want, and it is a huge digital shopping mall they will get - be it by hook, crook, or legal team.
If my name is Jim McDonalds and I registered mcdonalds.com back in 1994, why should it be determined that I must give up my domain name to a corporation? Or, in the case of thebarbies.com, simply hand it over? (By the way, I don't know who the first McDonalds was, or if he/she were engaged in cybersquatting, or if the name was registered, I simply use this as another obvious example).
Problem is, when the rule changed and business was allowed to populate the Internet, there were no parameters in place to prevent this kind of nonsense. If I register Sears.com because my name is Hans Sears, and I did this before Sears the corporation, and my site has nothing to do with Sears the corporation, well then I should be able to keep that name. It is completely irrelevant if somebody ends up on my website believing they are going to Sears.com the retail corporation. It is up to the consumer to find Sears the corporation on the Web. That's what search engines are for.
If you look at any information about Bronfman and Seagram, you will see they have bought into entertainment big time over the last few years. This is why they are against Napster. This is why they will fight to the death against anonymous free speech - and, yes, file-sharing.
As somebody posted elsewhere here, if you look into the Bronfman family history, you will see they made their money by bootlegging alcohol into America from Canada during the Prohibition.
Can anybody spell hypocrisy?
Large corporations are self-serving entities. If anonymous speech - a cornerstone of liberty as Jefferson and the founding fathers knew - is eliminated in the process of making all knowledge in the world proprietary, so be it.
The sad thing is that Americans have allowed this to happen. Many of them no longer understand why they enjoy certain freedoms. Even fewer of them see through the media hype on Napster and ascertain the real fundemental issues - allowing corporations to dictate technology and, by extension, or freedoms.
Gnutella is one thing. But the theory behind Freenet is another entirely. It is designed to ensure anonymity for unconventional, even heretical ideas. We don't live in a no-risk world - if we provide free speech and trade in ideas, illegal things are sure to happen. But it is worth it because the alternative is the death of liberty for all, most of whom do not trade in illegal stuff, virtual or not.
What's scary about Bronfman's speech is his zeal and the severity of his metaphors (the ski mask). He surely can - and has threatened - to call out his big buck legal and politcal dogs on anonymous file-sharing.
This is the kind of attitude that will allow these huge corporations to get away with murder. You won't be yawning when you have to reach in your wallet and pay for every instance of cultural manifestation on a metered basis.
What if I invented a technology (improbable, but for the sake of argument) that was able to make copies of objects in the physical world? For instance, I use this technology to make a copy of your car. You still have your car, I have not taken it away from you. If I didn't tell you about the copy, you wouldn't know the difference.
Would we define this as theft?
Now, it may devalue your original car if the car was customized, if you wanted to sell it.
But it wouldn't be theft.
Same with MP3s. Actually, since MP3s are essentially nothing but random electrons outside of the computer or storage media, it can be argued that they don't even exist - not like a CD.
People would say it's still theft because, ultimately, I am denying an artist or big corporation the possiblity for income. This is a large assumption, of course, but one used every day to portray MP3 file-sharing as theft.
People copy stuff all the time and it is not considered theft - for example, copyrighted books at the library. Why isn't this considered piracy? Isn't it the same as copying an MP3 file? Yet almost everybody has done this at one time or another, probably even Hilary Rosen.
We should resist the characterization of copying as theft. We should call a spade a spade - MP3s are copies, not originals.
People seem to misunderstand a few very basic and simple things when it comes to so-called copyright piracy.
Theft is a word that gets thrown around a lot. Copying is not theft - it's, well, copying. I would urge you to go get your dictionary and look up the word. In order for it to be theft, I would have to DEPRIVE you of something - take it away from you, deny you possession. Copying does not do this.
It may very well deprive an artist or a large corporation of income - but that is not the same as taking money out of your pocket. It is ASSUMED that an artist or large corporation would make money on the alleged stolen thing, but that is not a forgone conclusion (especially if I didn't buy the item).
Don't let people confuse the issue. It's more about control - who will get to read a book or listen to a CD, and for how much and how many times. This is exactly what e-publishers want to do - make you pay on a per read or listen basis - and lock up ideas in a vault, only to be released upon payment.
This will breed mass ignorance - the people who can afford to read will, those who can't afford it, won't. If these large corporations have their way, the idea of a lending library will go by the wayside.
We need to see these things for what they are and not get sidetracked - are we going to let stockholders, interested primarily in profit, dictate our cultural norms? In the last few decades we have allowed this to happen and look at the result - television is a commercial wasteland, vapid and spiritless, our popular literature revolves around sensationalism, violence, and mindless sex, our music is temporary pop nonsense (with large corporations acting as kiddie porn pimps - you ever check out a Britney Spears video?).
People have to take a stand on this stuff - and copyright is but the first battle in what will prove to be a long war to regain our culture, not let it be dictated to us by corporations that merge and acquire and reduce anything of substance to white bread.
I don't understand the connection - Napster is proprietary software, not a GNU or open-source project (like Gnutella). So what's the connection? Is it just because Linus said he believes in copyright? I believe in copyright too - just not for over a hundred years at the expense of the public, for which it was initially designed to serve after a short period when the author/musician/programmer can profit.
You guys are kidding, right? The music industry will never consent to this kind of advance previewing of their CDs - no way, especially not in the MP3 format (even at reduced bitrate). Sure, many stores offer listening stations - and a few (like Borders) let you listen to any CD before you buy it - but in general it is assumed that you know what you are going to buy prior to going to a RW record store. Most stores don't offer this feature. You buy the CD blind and if you don't like it, tough. I believe the recording industry is going to want to charge for ALL MP3s, regardless of reduced bitrate quality. They are deadset against this technology, regardless of the lip service they give to the idea of selling music on the Internet. I expect them to continue with the lawsuits - and the political manipulation. Soon the DMCA will be revisited to make it even more oppressive toward copying consumers - a House committee will be looking at Napster next week.
I, too, am an amateur musician, yet I think your argument is flawed. Do you think that if people stopped downloading MP3s tomorrow, your friends would make money? No, because the music industry is a rigged game.
Unfortunately or not, chances are your friends will remain poor musicians. If they are interested in making money, they should get into a game that is less rigged (say, bricklaying). Why is it that so many musicians expect to get paid for what they do? Because the music industry itself has created an image of the rock star, the big bucks, etc. It's a hopelessly flawed dream.
Quit blaming Napster. This technology -- peer to peer file exchange -- is only going to grow. It's here to stay. If the music industry wants to save its fat ass, it will adapt to it and figure out how to make even more money than they do now (by all reports, they make more money than ever, even with so called MP3 piracy).
I'm sorry, but you sound like an apologist for retro technology (compact disc and the old distribution model). Things are changing -- if you don't get out of the way, you'll get run over...
What's overlooked in this argument is this -- the record industry, regardless of so-called piracy, is making more money than ever. If MP3 sharing is taking a bite out of their profits, as they claim, it sure is not showing up on the balance sheet. If anything, freely distributed MP3s are a perfect vehicle for promotion. How many people have gone out and bought a CD after listening to an MP3? A lot, I'd venture. The orginal post misses the point -- this whole thing is about control, who will control the distribution of music. It has little, if anything, to do with stealing material. It's the music industry that needs to change, not the behavior of so-called thieves (actually, music fans). Instead of alientating and pissing off a large segment of customers (MP3 downloaders buy music too), the industry should embrace new distribution models and stop whining. Period.
Good argument. But this is the real point in regard to MP3s -- people love music, people want to share music, people think the record companies are fulla shit. No law is going to stop them from sharing music, no self-righteous speeches from wealthy rock stars will make them stop sharing music. Walk up to anybody on the street and ask them a question: do you think it's wrong to make a tape of your favorite CD and give it to a friend? Do you think it's stealing? Chances are they'd say no, it's not stealing, it's sharing. OK, it's "legal" to make an analog tape copy of a digital CD, but not a digital copy of a digital CD... huh? What's that all about? After you shell out 16 bucks or more for a CD, do you own it? No, according to the law, the record company still owns it. You're just borrowing it. If you copy it, you're a criminal. We're a nation of criminals. Music lovers, sharing, are criminals. Same with DeCSS. What right do those pesky Linux users have running DVD on their machines? They should be running Windows or some other proprietary OS. You know, Linux users can't be trusted -- if they hack DVD software, you just know they are going to make copies of American Beauty and give 'em away for free on the net. Stupid laws, indeed. Worse, stupid arguments.
You really are a misfit, aren't you. Obviously, it's misanthropes like you that give the Internet and messageboards a bad name. Turds? A bit adolescent, wouldn't you say? I can see you, running around with feces on your fingers, dirtying up all the decent things... make your mark, no?
After all, you are an "Anonymous Coward," like all misanthropes and feces slingers...
The less people on the Internet the better? Hahahahahaa. That's rich. Do you think you'd be posting yr nonsense, your petty little flames, if this wasn't such a popular thing? No, you'd be mooching off some university for your Internet connection.
I don't know why I bother responding to children like you -- little clowns in search of targets for their feces slinging.
Jack, Joe Sixpack will never agree with you. Joe and Jane Sixpack, for lack of a better explanation, are intellectually bankrupt. They believe the crap the media feeds them -- hackers are evil, pornography on the Internet is widespread, all the things you mentioned in your post. Whatever the media tells them, they believe. Americans are not ready for the freedom, the heritage of freedom, the RESPONSIBILITY of freedom, that the founding fathers talked about so passionately.
Lest you think I am arrogant and find myself superior to Joe Sixpack, please note that, nearly 30 years ago, I threw myself into saving America from the Vietnam War. For my effort I was busted, snooped on, followed around by undercover cops. Worse, twenty years later, a large precentage of Americans, many of whom should know better, said the war was right, just handled badly! These were the same people who voted for Reagan.
These are also the same folks who are now clamoring for censorship on the Internet, for laws in lieu of the fact they do not monitor what their kids do online. It shouldn't be expected that they will rally behind programmers (who have been demonized by the media, or least, made to look like geeky misfits) any more than auto workers rallied behind the socialists who dreamily assumed they'd be able to organize them back in the late 60s.
I agree with Jon Katz. This is something I have thought about a lot recently. My response has been to send out emails to the companies that are either greedy or stepping on toes with their proprietary mentality. For instance: 1) sending massive emails to not only etoys.com, but also their investors and stockholders after they had the etoy domain yanked. Many others did this as well and the etoys.com stock suffered as a result. As well, they dropped their lawsiot against the group of Zurich artists. 2) No longer buy books at Amazon.com because they trademarked a mouse click and attempted to sue others (barnes&noble) for using it (the concept is "one click shopping," as if you can trademark a mouse click). 3) I still have to write Verio for attemtping to trademark WHOIS. 4) posting messages about all of this and forwarding email to others to get them to send emails as well. 5) participating in MP3 advocacy; using software that utilizes open standards (FreeAmp instead of WinAmp, Napster, RadioSpy, etc.) Every person who downloads MP3s -- either legal or illegal -- is sending a message to RIAA and the music industry -- we don't need your stinkin' ancient distribution and control model. 6) support the DVD hackers and Linux in general.
Er, you ever hear of something called PARC? They invented the GUI and mouse. Fact is that both Jobs and Gates "borrowed" these concepts from PARC. As you say, they may have made everybody go "gaga" over this technology, but the fact remains that without it there would be far less people on computers, and subsequently the Internet. Is this a bad thing? Or maybe we should have stayed with the command line, lynx, gopher, all the early stuff of computers and the Internet? That you think they only thing on the Internet now is crap and ads makes you look pretty silly. We have over a billion documents on there on the Web now. I take it you've done a crapola litmus test on all of them?
Slashdot Mirror
You say programming is power. But how much power do you have if the machines you program are owned by corportions?
Get a clue. Katz is right. It does not matter how hard you work or how entitled you believe you are - these corporations can impoverish you if you step outside of the parameters they have set.
You were shafted by culture? How? And has resentment and you're sense of entitlement because you're a computer jockey make you feel better than others>
You play right in their hands.
Right. And then a buncha Silicon Valley geeks and dot-commers raised housing prices so high they all had to move out.
"Lets just take the music from musicians and not pay them anything. Lets just take from others and pay them nothing." Oh, you're talking about the recording industry? Is this off-topic, or what?
Napster as a business is absurd. It will never make any money, only lose money. It will be litigated out of existence. The only enduring legacy of Napster is that it pushed the envelope on the P2P concept. VCs will lose money. That's why two Napster principals broke off, trying to create a business scheme that will make money.
I think P2P is inherently anti-business: it's about people sharing files without middlemen, without central servers. Dot-com business people, in general, are losing money on business ventures. I believe this is a good thing. Maybe scads of them will abandon the Internet. Not likely, but maybe.
Gnutella is the exception - created by developers, it has no pretension toward business and untold riches: it is software for people who want to share things, be those things copyrighted or not. Thankfully, business can't get a handle on this. Nor can the RIAA.
Good.
This post makes perfect sense. The real reason the FBI wants to sniff email is not to catch child pornographers, but to pin down political opponents. If you don't believe this, read a little history: they followed around Martin Luther King, anti-war activists, socialists, etc. It's no secret that J. Edgar Hoover was a rightwing fanatic. Waco is a perfect example. This is a rogue agency, capable of mass murder. We're supposed to trust them? I don't think so.
Uh, hello? These megacorporations are truly international, they do not respect national borders or cultural heritage - it is their intention to sell the same products on a global basis. They don't care if you are Asian, German, Dutch, African, etc. - so long as you have money. Also, increasingly, the principals of these corporations are international. This is a global thing, not strictly American.
Gnutella users: continue, ignore this hype, and just make sure you know what you're doing before you open a file.
Tell me this isn't crazy.
Probelm is, these large corporations have colonized and are now in the process of domesticating the Internet. It's a huge digital shopping mall they want, and it is a huge digital shopping mall they will get - be it by hook, crook, or legal team.
If my name is Jim McDonalds and I registered mcdonalds.com back in 1994, why should it be determined that I must give up my domain name to a corporation? Or, in the case of thebarbies.com, simply hand it over? (By the way, I don't know who the first McDonalds was, or if he/she were engaged in cybersquatting, or if the name was registered, I simply use this as another obvious example).
Problem is, when the rule changed and business was allowed to populate the Internet, there were no parameters in place to prevent this kind of nonsense. If I register Sears.com because my name is Hans Sears, and I did this before Sears the corporation, and my site has nothing to do with Sears the corporation, well then I should be able to keep that name. It is completely irrelevant if somebody ends up on my website believing they are going to Sears.com the retail corporation. It is up to the consumer to find Sears the corporation on the Web. That's what search engines are for.
As somebody posted elsewhere here, if you look into the Bronfman family history, you will see they made their money by bootlegging alcohol into America from Canada during the Prohibition.
Can anybody spell hypocrisy?
Large corporations are self-serving entities. If anonymous speech - a cornerstone of liberty as Jefferson and the founding fathers knew - is eliminated in the process of making all knowledge in the world proprietary, so be it.
The sad thing is that Americans have allowed this to happen. Many of them no longer understand why they enjoy certain freedoms. Even fewer of them see through the media hype on Napster and ascertain the real fundemental issues - allowing corporations to dictate technology and, by extension, or freedoms.
Gnutella is one thing. But the theory behind Freenet is another entirely. It is designed to ensure anonymity for unconventional, even heretical ideas. We don't live in a no-risk world - if we provide free speech and trade in ideas, illegal things are sure to happen. But it is worth it because the alternative is the death of liberty for all, most of whom do not trade in illegal stuff, virtual or not.
What's scary about Bronfman's speech is his zeal and the severity of his metaphors (the ski mask). He surely can - and has threatened - to call out his big buck legal and politcal dogs on anonymous file-sharing.
This is the kind of attitude that will allow these huge corporations to get away with murder. You won't be yawning when you have to reach in your wallet and pay for every instance of cultural manifestation on a metered basis.
Would we define this as theft?
Now, it may devalue your original car if the car was customized, if you wanted to sell it.
But it wouldn't be theft.
Same with MP3s. Actually, since MP3s are essentially nothing but random electrons outside of the computer or storage media, it can be argued that they don't even exist - not like a CD.
People would say it's still theft because, ultimately, I am denying an artist or big corporation the possiblity for income. This is a large assumption, of course, but one used every day to portray MP3 file-sharing as theft.
People copy stuff all the time and it is not considered theft - for example, copyrighted books at the library. Why isn't this considered piracy? Isn't it the same as copying an MP3 file? Yet almost everybody has done this at one time or another, probably even Hilary Rosen.
We should resist the characterization of copying as theft. We should call a spade a spade - MP3s are copies, not originals.
Theft is a word that gets thrown around a lot. Copying is not theft - it's, well, copying. I would urge you to go get your dictionary and look up the word. In order for it to be theft, I would have to DEPRIVE you of something - take it away from you, deny you possession. Copying does not do this.
It may very well deprive an artist or a large corporation of income - but that is not the same as taking money out of your pocket. It is ASSUMED that an artist or large corporation would make money on the alleged stolen thing, but that is not a forgone conclusion (especially if I didn't buy the item).
Don't let people confuse the issue. It's more about control - who will get to read a book or listen to a CD, and for how much and how many times. This is exactly what e-publishers want to do - make you pay on a per read or listen basis - and lock up ideas in a vault, only to be released upon payment.
This will breed mass ignorance - the people who can afford to read will, those who can't afford it, won't. If these large corporations have their way, the idea of a lending library will go by the wayside.
We need to see these things for what they are and not get sidetracked - are we going to let stockholders, interested primarily in profit, dictate our cultural norms? In the last few decades we have allowed this to happen and look at the result - television is a commercial wasteland, vapid and spiritless, our popular literature revolves around sensationalism, violence, and mindless sex, our music is temporary pop nonsense (with large corporations acting as kiddie porn pimps - you ever check out a Britney Spears video?).
People have to take a stand on this stuff - and copyright is but the first battle in what will prove to be a long war to regain our culture, not let it be dictated to us by corporations that merge and acquire and reduce anything of substance to white bread.
Can anybody out there say "Rollerball"?
I don't understand the connection - Napster is proprietary software, not a GNU or open-source project (like Gnutella). So what's the connection? Is it just because Linus said he believes in copyright? I believe in copyright too - just not for over a hundred years at the expense of the public, for which it was initially designed to serve after a short period when the author/musician/programmer can profit.
You guys are kidding, right? The music industry will never consent to this kind of advance previewing of their CDs - no way, especially not in the MP3 format (even at reduced bitrate). Sure, many stores offer listening stations - and a few (like Borders) let you listen to any CD before you buy it - but in general it is assumed that you know what you are going to buy prior to going to a RW record store. Most stores don't offer this feature. You buy the CD blind and if you don't like it, tough. I believe the recording industry is going to want to charge for ALL MP3s, regardless of reduced bitrate quality. They are deadset against this technology, regardless of the lip service they give to the idea of selling music on the Internet. I expect them to continue with the lawsuits - and the political manipulation. Soon the DMCA will be revisited to make it even more oppressive toward copying consumers - a House committee will be looking at Napster next week.
Unfortunately or not, chances are your friends will remain poor musicians. If they are interested in making money, they should get into a game that is less rigged (say, bricklaying). Why is it that so many musicians expect to get paid for what they do? Because the music industry itself has created an image of the rock star, the big bucks, etc. It's a hopelessly flawed dream.
Quit blaming Napster. This technology -- peer to peer file exchange -- is only going to grow. It's here to stay. If the music industry wants to save its fat ass, it will adapt to it and figure out how to make even more money than they do now (by all reports, they make more money than ever, even with so called MP3 piracy).
I'm sorry, but you sound like an apologist for retro technology (compact disc and the old distribution model). Things are changing -- if you don't get out of the way, you'll get run over...
What's overlooked in this argument is this -- the record industry, regardless of so-called piracy, is making more money than ever. If MP3 sharing is taking a bite out of their profits, as they claim, it sure is not showing up on the balance sheet. If anything, freely distributed MP3s are a perfect vehicle for promotion. How many people have gone out and bought a CD after listening to an MP3? A lot, I'd venture. The orginal post misses the point -- this whole thing is about control, who will control the distribution of music. It has little, if anything, to do with stealing material. It's the music industry that needs to change, not the behavior of so-called thieves (actually, music fans). Instead of alientating and pissing off a large segment of customers (MP3 downloaders buy music too), the industry should embrace new distribution models and stop whining. Period.
Good argument. But this is the real point in regard to MP3s -- people love music, people want to share music, people think the record companies are fulla shit. No law is going to stop them from sharing music, no self-righteous speeches from wealthy rock stars will make them stop sharing music. Walk up to anybody on the street and ask them a question: do you think it's wrong to make a tape of your favorite CD and give it to a friend? Do you think it's stealing? Chances are they'd say no, it's not stealing, it's sharing. OK, it's "legal" to make an analog tape copy of a digital CD, but not a digital copy of a digital CD... huh? What's that all about? After you shell out 16 bucks or more for a CD, do you own it? No, according to the law, the record company still owns it. You're just borrowing it. If you copy it, you're a criminal. We're a nation of criminals. Music lovers, sharing, are criminals. Same with DeCSS. What right do those pesky Linux users have running DVD on their machines? They should be running Windows or some other proprietary OS. You know, Linux users can't be trusted -- if they hack DVD software, you just know they are going to make copies of American Beauty and give 'em away for free on the net. Stupid laws, indeed. Worse, stupid arguments.
After all, you are an "Anonymous Coward," like all misanthropes and feces slingers...
The less people on the Internet the better? Hahahahahaa. That's rich. Do you think you'd be posting yr nonsense, your petty little flames, if this wasn't such a popular thing? No, you'd be mooching off some university for your Internet connection.
I don't know why I bother responding to children like you -- little clowns in search of targets for their feces slinging.
Jeez, get a life.
Lest you think I am arrogant and find myself superior to Joe Sixpack, please note that, nearly 30 years ago, I threw myself into saving America from the Vietnam War. For my effort I was busted, snooped on, followed around by undercover cops. Worse, twenty years later, a large precentage of Americans, many of whom should know better, said the war was right, just handled badly! These were the same people who voted for Reagan.
These are also the same folks who are now clamoring for censorship on the Internet, for laws in lieu of the fact they do not monitor what their kids do online. It shouldn't be expected that they will rally behind programmers (who have been demonized by the media, or least, made to look like geeky misfits) any more than auto workers rallied behind the socialists who dreamily assumed they'd be able to organize them back in the late 60s.
I agree with Jon Katz. This is something I have thought about a lot recently. My response has been to send out emails to the companies that are either greedy or stepping on toes with their proprietary mentality. For instance: 1) sending massive emails to not only etoys.com, but also their investors and stockholders after they had the etoy domain yanked. Many others did this as well and the etoys.com stock suffered as a result. As well, they dropped their lawsiot against the group of Zurich artists. 2) No longer buy books at Amazon.com because they trademarked a mouse click and attempted to sue others (barnes&noble) for using it (the concept is "one click shopping," as if you can trademark a mouse click). 3) I still have to write Verio for attemtping to trademark WHOIS. 4) posting messages about all of this and forwarding email to others to get them to send emails as well. 5) participating in MP3 advocacy; using software that utilizes open standards (FreeAmp instead of WinAmp, Napster, RadioSpy, etc.) Every person who downloads MP3s -- either legal or illegal -- is sending a message to RIAA and the music industry -- we don't need your stinkin' ancient distribution and control model. 6) support the DVD hackers and Linux in general.
Er, you ever hear of something called PARC? They invented the GUI and mouse. Fact is that both Jobs and Gates "borrowed" these concepts from PARC. As you say, they may have made everybody go "gaga" over this technology, but the fact remains that without it there would be far less people on computers, and subsequently the Internet. Is this a bad thing? Or maybe we should have stayed with the command line, lynx, gopher, all the early stuff of computers and the Internet? That you think they only thing on the Internet now is crap and ads makes you look pretty silly. We have over a billion documents on there on the Web now. I take it you've done a crapola litmus test on all of them?