1. Illegal Activity
1.1. You must not use the Service for any activity that violates any local, state, federal or international law, order or regulation. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to:
Posting, disseminating or in some cases accessing material which is unlawful. This includes material that is or would be classified RC or X and includes material that is or would be classified R where a restricted access system is not in place. Such content includes but is not limited to:
material containing detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use;
child pornography;
bestiality;
excessively violent or sexually violent material;
real depictions of actual sexual activity;
obscene material; and
content hosted in Australia which is classified R and not subject to a restricted access system which complies with criteria determined by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). For more information about the regulatory regime applying to online content go to www.aba.gov.au
Disseminating material which violates the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. You assume all risks regarding the determination of whether material is in the public domain.
Pyramid or other illegal soliciting schemes.
Any fraudulent activities, including impersonating any person or entity or forging anyone else's digital or manual signature.
If you do violate it
9.1. Optus is not obligated to regularly monitor your usage of the Service. However, in its efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, it will respond appropriately if it becomes aware that you or someone with access to your Service has violated this Acceptable Use Policy or the Customer Terms or you or someone with access to your Service, has used the Service in an inappropriate manner. Although Optus has no obligation to monitor the Service, Optus reserves the right to monitor (and request Excite@Home to monitor) your bandwidth, usage or content, to identify violations of this Acceptable Use Policy; and to protect the Optus@Home Network and other users of this Service.
Who asked them to begin monitering?
There's no indication of whether this is a responsibility under law or whether they have chosen to do this. I note that the policy has not changed since September 2000.
Eventually one ought to be able to programme celebrity voices to have them say what you what them to say. So that one could get James Hetfield (singer for Metallica) to praise Napster.
We must protect the voices of our stars against the reverse engineering of their talent and the propagation of atrocities like "The (almost) real slim shady".
It's the thin edge of the wedge which will destroy all musical creativity.
Check out CiteSeer to get an idea of what this means for online journals.
CiteSeer combines paper library and citation database allowing one to, for example, search for free text search, find appropriate papers and, for example, rank them on the number of citations those papers have received (and in what context).
The full text is often available especially for computer science papers and the paper downloadable in pdf, ps etc formates.
You get to not only see all the papers but critically see the links between them which is somehting that is non-intuitive and very time-consuming on paper journals.
There is also a nascent comment on this paper fuction
Looks great but no real advancements in game play.
I'd like to play the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood - manipulating blood lines and controlling world with myths planted eons ago. Imagine if you could programme to operators of the tanks or nukes to turn traitor with careful breeding.
You could try putting together a maths specific tool for the Groove P2P network.
There are quite a few useful whiteboard type tools already.
This would get the best of both worlds in that you wouldn't be foistering a pre-packaged solution on the scientists but you would be working with a robust, open platform that would be available both on site and off site.
The notion of being able to maufacture chips on the desktop combined with P2P file-sharing gives a whole new slant to "Open Hardware".
The article says that "scientists will be able to..." but it gets really exciting when the technology develops to make these fabbers as commonplace as scanners.
The key is creating generalised fabricators that are able to manufacture many products - just as the computer is a generalised logic machine.
Check out:
http://www.ennex.com/publish/200102-MB&Howison-N ap ster.sht
I think it identifies the right balance between ensuring that copyright owners' legitimate interests are protected and at the same time ensuring the users have the same protections that have been available to them in the offline environment.
If that is the intent then arguing that Fair Dealing (aussie name for Fair Use) should be protected. Of course, like the US situation it probably is not (see below).
Importantly, the bill provides copyright owners with the tools they need for the commercial exploitation of their intellectual property in the digital age.
Copyright origionally existed as a limited monoploy to encourage creative production - not to allow 'commercial exploitation'
Interesting sections of the act are:
116A Importation, manufacture etc. of circumvention device and provision etc. of circumvention service
116B Removal or alteration of electronic rights management information
100 Subsection 132(5A) [this is the one that 2600 is referring to in the letter] (5A) A person must not provide, or by way of trade promote, advertise or market, a circumvention service if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the service will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure
There are some permitted uses listed under section 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A or 183 or Part VB. but I don't have time to read all of them right now:(
The Police, of course, are exepmted from all these provisions!
Not sure of the etiquette of posting in your own story but what the hell.
Three technologies that compliment fabbers are:
Scanners - the equivalent of MP3 rippers in the Napster analogy. These would be needed so that the source code for objects travels with that object. They exist in quite complex ways at present but don't model internal structure etc.
As people point out - this is only a matter of time (and matter:)
Chewers: Recyclers allowing materials to be used in the fabber. Clearly this will take some doing but I envisage a time when old stuff will be added to some new (high-margin) materials to create new objects.
Real-Time re-fabrication: This is the wackiest but imagine that your desk contains micro-circuity and a port so that it can be re-programmed into a dinner table, or coffee table, or chair.
Fancy a furniture virus anyone??
Also we need to plan for the role that Designers will be in - analogous to artists under P2P file-sharing:)
To truely promote free speech and fulfill their responsibilities to trademark holders ICANN could create a new TLD ".sucks".
The conditions of owning a domain in this TLD should specify that if you are the owner or controller of a string in any other domain then you could not own or control a similar string in ".sucks".
Thus microsoft.sucks could not be owned or controlled by microsoft.
microsoftsucks.com could be ruled out because it is in the wrong TLD with the defendant offered microsoft.sucks
Of course till then give them hell.
ps. I'll be first to register really.sucks
James
'course it just sounds a bit stupid and generally seems to emphasise speed of production over flavour and style.
Come to think of it that's why it is only an accepted variant in the (dictionary.com source) "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition"
Ah, the speedy crappy stench of 'American Heritage' Expresso.
Finding complete published documents which describe all steps can be hard.
Finding published documents which describe each step is often easy. AFAIK, it's not prior art as such but is does go towards proving obviousness, now doesn't it.
eg. The SightSound 1995 Patent for selling digital downloads of audio and video.
easy to find CS documents on streaming audio and video (1991 was the earliest I found on Citeseer)
Also easy to find documents on taking money for a digital service over a telecommunications link (Minitel in France was doing this years before).
I think Prior Art has to demonstrate all claims - anyone fill us in on this?
But finding these documensts shows that it was pretty bloody obvious at the time, no?
Cheers
James
ps. Anyone shooting for the money could do worse than start at Citeseer
Your point about the dealing in the open vs dealing in the back room is valid.
However there is a better way - preferential voting - here the 'deals' are done on your ballot paper as shown by your preferences.
Think of preferential voting as voting in reverse. Give you number one to the person you dislike the least and your last number to the person you dislike the most.
I work with an organisation that produces many documents that different people, only communicating by email, have worked on.
Managing the additions and comments is a bit of a nightmare. Some people understand and can use the comments/track changes system in word but others don't which is a disaster (whole edits lost when the person thinks it's all a formating cock-up)
I've started to get people to use a versioning system (Originator designates V x and additions add one to y in V x.y) but without very careful management that sucks too, especially when two people work on it at the same time.
My boss also often gets me to check documents that have been edited against her last version to see what's changed.
I've thought about using CVS but the lack of integration with word processors along with command line doesn't cut it.
Anyone doing collaborative editing using CVS? Is there potential for webDAV to lead to a versioned HTML collaborative environment?
Cheers
James
ps. any system that I could get poeple to adopt must work with word. I hate it (and can't believe it) but even rtf is too much effort (some poeple's email systems read it as text, not an attachment and they don't know the difference between "in line" and "as an attachment")
First the innocent @ and now the damn : (in:CueCat)
What's next in this modern festival of punctuation abuse?
The ~, the `, the |||?
why not |Value| (pronounced 'absolute value')?
Why don't these f*ckers rest happy with the letter keys.
Damn there goes the *, coopted by censors!
No doubt that this is disturbing - I guess everyone was happy with google because it seemed to be outside the "pay-for-relevance" model that other search engines were gradually adapting.
As I read it the linking method that google uses count a link as a vote - The article makes an interesting point:
anyone with experience in the realm of medical/health directories will realize that subject specialists who make web pages don't often make links to Yahoo!
The linkages from medical/health specialists are far more considered and thus higher 'quality' recommendations than the general mass of links. What you may have is a bunch of know-nothings wanting to link to health resources and thus linking to Yahoo - this mass of 'junk links' then outweighs the quality links that really help you find quality resources.
What would be cool is an expansion of the dmoz/google collaboration and valued the links from sites identified by the human editors as the best ('starred sites') more highly than the rest.
In the long run we should be able to specify our interest group and have a google style link popularity system based on links from that interest group (what sites with the keyword DeCSS are linked to most by sites run by members of slashdot/ the sites most frequently used by people at our company (stay in the loop)
Obviously the associations would be voluntary (and may be a sellable item)
Sadly I do think that the tie up between Google and Yahoo will have affected their ranking system.
If the price of legality for Napster was an upfront royalty payment to the entertainment industries royalty fund a la DAT etc. then I say hell yes - let's do it:-)
But that trade off would never be made by the RIAA etc. because when they made the trade off with Sony over DAT they knew that the amount of 'serial copying' would be limited to a scale way below Napster.
The goal of the entertainment industry associations in the next few years is to make copying information difficult enough so that, say, less than 10% of people will do it, while not pissing absolutely everyone off, so I would be very surprised if they go after IRC servers (the mode of copying which gave Fanning the idea for napster. Smae goes for the much more complex attacks needed on Gnutella etc.
If I were the Aimster people I'd be very interested in whether the court adopts the argument that Sec 1008 doesn't apply. Aimster - by restricting availability to those on your Buddy list aims specifically at coming within this section (and the tape-swapping cases) by denying that this is about 'distribution' = "it's just my buddies"
BTW - I think that arguments over the morality of file-sharing are a little silly. Of course artists need to get paid - doing it by paying for 'intellectual property' is just the way it has been done in recent monopoly capitalism.
There are other exciting and viable models for funding creative production. Street performer protocol, tipping
Slashdot Mirror
Section 1 is called "illegal activity":
1. Illegal Activity1.1. You must not use the Service for any activity that violates any local, state, federal or international law, order or regulation. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to:
Posting, disseminating or in some cases accessing material which is unlawful. This includes material that is or would be classified RC or X and includes material that is or would be classified R where a restricted access system is not in place. Such content includes but is not limited to: material containing detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use; child pornography; bestiality; excessively violent or sexually violent material; real depictions of actual sexual activity; obscene material; and content hosted in Australia which is classified R and not subject to a restricted access system which complies with criteria determined by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). For more information about the regulatory regime applying to online content go to www.aba.gov.au
Disseminating material which violates the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. You assume all risks regarding the determination of whether material is in the public domain.
Pyramid or other illegal soliciting schemes.
Any fraudulent activities, including impersonating any person or entity or forging anyone else's digital or manual signature. If you do violate it
9.1. Optus is not obligated to regularly monitor your usage of the Service. However, in its efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, it will respond appropriately if it becomes aware that you or someone with access to your Service has violated this Acceptable Use Policy or the Customer Terms or you or someone with access to your Service, has used the Service in an inappropriate manner. Although Optus has no obligation to monitor the Service, Optus reserves the right to monitor (and request Excite@Home to monitor) your bandwidth, usage or content, to identify violations of this Acceptable Use Policy; and to protect the Optus@Home Network and other users of this Service.
Who asked them to begin monitering?
There's no indication of whether this is a responsibility under law or whether they have chosen to do this. I note that the policy has not changed since September 2000.
James
Eventually one ought to be able to programme celebrity voices to have them say what you what them to say. So that one could get James Hetfield (singer for Metallica) to praise Napster.
Oh - it's already happened ... MC Hawking's Crib
We must protect the voices of our stars against the reverse engineering of their talent and the propagation of atrocities like "The (almost) real slim shady".
It's the thin edge of the wedge which will destroy all musical creativity.
James
CiteSeer combines paper library and citation database allowing one to, for example, search for free text search, find appropriate papers and, for example, rank them on the number of citations those papers have received (and in what context).
The full text is often available especially for computer science papers and the paper downloadable in pdf, ps etc formates.
You get to not only see all the papers but critically see the links between them which is somehting that is non-intuitive and very time-consuming on paper journals.
There is also a nascent comment on this paper fuction
It is very cool.
James
A lot can be accomplished using ssh (TopGun ssh) on the palm across a modem (or cell phone if you are desperate.
Just need to work out installing the termcap thingy on the server end.
I've written and submitted (for marking) Oracle queries, and submitted java assignments from my palm.
A keyboard really perks that up.
James
I'd like to play the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood - manipulating blood lines and controlling world with myths planted eons ago. Imagine if you could programme to operators of the tanks or nukes to turn traitor with careful breeding.
James
Tried Goggle Blink video -182
Please explain?
James
You Americans sure are wacky:
rudaditorian - rudest kid in the class ....
mooaditorian - grumpiest kid in the class
foodaditorian - fatest kid in the class
screwaditorian -
James ... I know.
P.s. Yes, yes
There are quite a few useful whiteboard type tools already. This would get the best of both worlds in that you wouldn't be foistering a pre-packaged solution on the scientists but you would be working with a robust, open platform that would be available both on site and off site.
James
Nothing to do with Groove
The notion of being able to maufacture chips on the desktop combined with P2P file-sharing gives a whole new slant to "Open Hardware".
..." but it gets really exciting when the technology develops to make these fabbers as commonplace as scanners.
N ap ster.sht
The article says that "scientists will be able to
The key is creating generalised fabricators that are able to manufacture many products - just as the computer is a generalised logic machine.
Check out:
http://www.ennex.com/publish/200102-MB&Howison-
don't tell your friends - tell your friendly VCs.
Cheers
James
Sen. Alston:
If that is the intent then arguing that Fair Dealing (aussie name for Fair Use) should be protected. Of course, like the US situation it probably is not (see below).
Copyright origionally existed as a limited monoploy to encourage creative production - not to allow 'commercial exploitation' Interesting sections of the act are:
116A Importation, manufacture etc. of circumvention device and provision etc. of circumvention service
116B Removal or alteration of electronic rights management information
100 Subsection 132(5A) [this is the one that 2600 is referring to in the letter] (5A) A person must not provide, or by way of trade promote, advertise or market, a circumvention service if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the service will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure
There are some permitted uses listed under section 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A or 183 or Part VB. but I don't have time to read all of them right now :(
The Police, of course, are exepmted from all these provisions!
Cheers
James
I think I remember that the Apple Newton's used a StrongARM processor - and that the one used in the Newton 2000 was fairly fast.
Will this port work on this puppy?
James
Espra is the GUI interface to Freenet. Now get on the network and help it work! Cheers James
Not sure of the etiquette of posting in your own story but what the hell.
:)
:)
Three technologies that compliment fabbers are:
Scanners - the equivalent of MP3 rippers in the Napster analogy. These would be needed so that the source code for objects travels with that object. They exist in quite complex ways at present but don't model internal structure etc.
As people point out - this is only a matter of time (and matter
Chewers: Recyclers allowing materials to be used in the fabber. Clearly this will take some doing but I envisage a time when old stuff will be added to some new (high-margin) materials to create new objects.
Real-Time re-fabrication: This is the wackiest but imagine that your desk contains micro-circuity and a port so that it can be re-programmed into a dinner table, or coffee table, or chair.
Fancy a furniture virus anyone??
Also we need to plan for the role that Designers will be in - analogous to artists under P2P file-sharing
James
We're going to give a presentation on the implications of P2P file-sharing technologies for the manufacturing industry as "Fabbers" come online.
Fabbers are solid imagers or basically 3D printers capable of printing out CAD files.
If you thought that the record industry is getting pissed off - imagine what will happen when you can trade rolex.fab files!
Check it out (Links to all sorts of Fabber stuff.)
Looking forward to the Collaborative Journalism forum for sure. Came from Australia to do this conference! Cheers James
To truely promote free speech and fulfill their responsibilities to trademark holders ICANN could create a new TLD ".sucks". The conditions of owning a domain in this TLD should specify that if you are the owner or controller of a string in any other domain then you could not own or control a similar string in ".sucks". Thus microsoft.sucks could not be owned or controlled by microsoft. microsoftsucks.com could be ruled out because it is in the wrong TLD with the defendant offered microsoft.sucks Of course till then give them hell. ps. I'll be first to register really.sucks James
'course it just sounds a bit stupid and generally seems to emphasise speed of production over flavour and style.
Come to think of it that's why it is only an accepted variant in the (dictionary.com source) "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition"
Ah, the speedy crappy stench of 'American Heritage' Expresso.
James
Asinine
Finding published documents which describe each step is often easy. AFAIK, it's not prior art as such but is does go towards proving obviousness, now doesn't it.
eg. The SightSound 1995 Patent for selling digital downloads of audio and video.
easy to find CS documents on streaming audio and video (1991 was the earliest I found on Citeseer)
Also easy to find documents on taking money for a digital service over a telecommunications link (Minitel in France was doing this years before).
I think Prior Art has to demonstrate all claims - anyone fill us in on this?
But finding these documensts shows that it was pretty bloody obvious at the time, no?
Cheers
James
ps. Anyone shooting for the money could do worse than start at Citeseer
Can anyone tell me how this relates to WebDAV?
Your point about the dealing in the open vs dealing in the back room is valid. However there is a better way - preferential voting - here the 'deals' are done on your ballot paper as shown by your preferences. Think of preferential voting as voting in reverse. Give you number one to the person you dislike the least and your last number to the person you dislike the most.
I work with an organisation that produces many documents that different people, only communicating by email, have worked on.
Managing the additions and comments is a bit of a nightmare. Some people understand and can use the comments/track changes system in word but others don't which is a disaster (whole edits lost when the person thinks it's all a formating cock-up)
I've started to get people to use a versioning system (Originator designates V x and additions add one to y in V x.y) but without very careful management that sucks too, especially when two people work on it at the same time.
My boss also often gets me to check documents that have been edited against her last version to see what's changed.
I've thought about using CVS but the lack of integration with word processors along with command line doesn't cut it.
Anyone doing collaborative editing using CVS? Is there potential for webDAV to lead to a versioned HTML collaborative environment?
Cheers
James
ps. any system that I could get poeple to adopt must work with word. I hate it (and can't believe it) but even rtf is too much effort (some poeple's email systems read it as text, not an attachment and they don't know the difference between "in line" and "as an attachment")
First the innocent @ and now the damn : (in :CueCat)
What's next in this modern festival of punctuation abuse?
The ~, the `, the |||?
why not |Value| (pronounced 'absolute value')?
Why don't these f*ckers rest happy with the letter keys.
Damn there goes the *, coopted by censors!
As I read it the linking method that google uses count a link as a vote - The article makes an interesting point:
The linkages from medical/health specialists are far more considered and thus higher 'quality' recommendations than the general mass of links. What you may have is a bunch of know-nothings wanting to link to health resources and thus linking to Yahoo - this mass of 'junk links' then outweighs the quality links that really help you find quality resources.What would be cool is an expansion of the dmoz/google collaboration and valued the links from sites identified by the human editors as the best ('starred sites') more highly than the rest.
In the long run we should be able to specify our interest group and have a google style link popularity system based on links from that interest group (what sites with the keyword DeCSS are linked to most by sites run by members of slashdot/ the sites most frequently used by people at our company (stay in the loop)
Obviously the associations would be voluntary (and may be a sellable item) Sadly I do think that the tie up between Google and Yahoo will have affected their ranking system.
Cheers
James I am a dmoz editor
was that after the food service company or the software company?
But that trade off would never be made by the RIAA etc. because when they made the trade off with Sony over DAT they knew that the amount of 'serial copying' would be limited to a scale way below Napster.
The goal of the entertainment industry associations in the next few years is to make copying information difficult enough so that, say, less than 10% of people will do it, while not pissing absolutely everyone off, so I would be very surprised if they go after IRC servers (the mode of copying which gave Fanning the idea for napster. Smae goes for the much more complex attacks needed on Gnutella etc.
If I were the Aimster people I'd be very interested in whether the court adopts the argument that Sec 1008 doesn't apply. Aimster - by restricting availability to those on your Buddy list aims specifically at coming within this section (and the tape-swapping cases) by denying that this is about 'distribution' = "it's just my buddies"
BTW - I think that arguments over the morality of file-sharing are a little silly. Of course artists need to get paid - doing it by paying for 'intellectual property' is just the way it has been done in recent monopoly capitalism.
There are other exciting and viable models for funding creative production. Street performer protocol, tipping
Cheers
James