What's all this about world domination and secure networks?
Note that the computer system you pick to host your Sputnik Gateway will boot and operate entirely from CD-ROM, and must be solely dedicated to functioning as a Sputnik Gateway
If I wanted to use my $2000 laptop (or $500 desktop) as a $200 wireless hub, couldn't I just download linux and set up some firewall rules? Where's the interesting new functionality here?
Why don't I just throw a web login on a can of cheez-whiz and make my own start-up! I'll encrypt it all with 4096 bit encryption and call it secur-a-whiz. Sure you'll have to plug it in to your laptop to use it, but it'll make millions, I swear!
The first survey in 96-97 was of 158 students in 3 different colleges by an economics major interested in piracy. Most of these students were probably friends and/or acquaintances.
The next survey was of 700 students at only 2 universities. This was probably a lot greater spectrum of students many of whom were in less technically oriented majors. ie: Much of the population doesn't know enough or care enough about computers to even begin pirating software.
Perhaps the piracy rates have changed in the past 4 years, perhaps not, but I don't think these surveys will tell us a thing one way or the other.
It pisses the HELL out of me when I click on a link IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARTICLE and end up LEAVING the site and have to hit back
I shouldn't respond to trolls, but who can resist...
What pisses me off is when I right click, and choose open in a new window and get some javascript error because the moron who wrote the page didn't know what he was doing.
What pisses me off even more is when I move my mouse over a link to see where it goes and it says something like "gotoxy()" instead of telling me where the link points. Who in their right mind would follow a link when they don't know where they might end up? I know if I can't view source and figure it out (assuming I'm interested enough to care...), I usually leave the site never to return.
It [the gpl] is an onerous and unconscionable license
I beg to differ! I think it's a wonderfully constructed bit of legalese that furthers its goals precisely.
that will hopefully be ruled illegal sometime in the near future.
I totally agree with this point!
If the ideals of the GPL were enacted, or even something close that allows copyright, but not the license cartels we seem to have today, the GPL wouldn't be legally enforceable. And it shouldn't be!! Just like Microsoft's latest version of no-compete/no-reverse engineering cruft shouldn't hold any water. Why should I sign more rights away by installing software than I do by signing a mortgage?
Like most of today's problems, the answer isn't more "rights". For copyright infringement the answer is policing. Just like jaywalking: If you don't punish offenders, no one will obey the law.
so basically I think strong AI is so obviously incorrect that it's laughable
How can strong AI be "incorrect"? Does that mean humans aren't intelligent? I think most people would agree that human level intelligence is something humans have not even come close to replicating. Perhaps that was your point?
and you hook those together exactly the same way that real neurons are hooked together... you could say that you've replicated human consciousness and intellect.
And I could respond that I'll believe you've actually done it when your result passes the Turing test. Turing's whole point, and I think he made it quite well, was that regardless of what you throw into your black box he's got a test that, administered properly, can show whether strong AI has been achieved for all practical purposes.
Of course, with today's techno-frenzy, the thing I worry most about "Turing" tests is that they seem to purposely dumb down expectations in order to make it look like progress is being made. "electronic" pets are a good example. All gene splicing aside, I haven't seen a toy that comes close to replacing my cat. Further, I'll believe Deep Blue is as smart as a human grand master at chess when he enters tournament play as a novice and earns the title properly. Until then, I'll continue to believe I witnessed Kasparov self distructing, rather than some feat of AI.
Only one problem with your scenario. You seem to assume that advertising doesn't matter. It very much does. As television adds become more and more ignored by viewers, advertisers will once again begin to look at the web. Especially considering all the market research benefits it can offer.
Profitable online advertising will come, the only question will be who's left standing to profit from it. (SourceForge and VA may just hold out that long)
Operator overloading can be the bees knees when implemented properly. If it were really too horrible to be used, we wouldn't have operators in language specs at all. The real trick is using it sparingly enough, and in the right places.
//code that really sucks below
int i(256.plus(128));
while( i.doesnotequal(2) ) {
i.minusminus();
}
That said, Java and Python avoid certain abuses quite well, but no language is safe in the hands of a truly bad programmer. What's important is to pick tools people can work with. Then have some iron clad rules that actually get enforced on how development should proceed.
Of course, looking at this AC's original list of requirements, I have to wonder if his boss is looking at their problem space and coming up with solid requirements that will make their solutions easier to create, or simply compiling a list of buzzwords he's read about different languages.
In my mind it's hard to look at a problem and say "I must have garbage collection to do this." or "This just won't be feasible without multiple inheritance." KDE has done a great job of showing just how well GUI's can be written using a language without built in garbage collection. Borland has written a pretty amazing IDE without using multiple inheritance.
jdesbonnet could certainly be right about the boss needing some education, but it could also just be a lack in comunication. Get your boss involved. Get in his head and found out about his past projects. Find out what he's trying to avoid and what he's trying to emulate. Perhaps then the two of you can make some kind of informed decision.
Of course "eyeballs=shallow" is a fallacy, actually, I'm not even sure it means anything. What's shallow? But it's no more messed up than working around the same bugs for 3 years because no one with the proper abilities is in a position to fix them. (A certain problem in SQL server 6.5 installation sticks in my mind.)
All else being equal, More opportunity = more bugs fixed. That's an equation that's a lot tougher to refute. I think it's great when companies have to explain exactly why closing their source is supposed to help their customers instead of just fattening their wallets...
I noticed you didn't touch that one. Perhaps you agree with Mr. Henning on this one point? He seemed to think great programmers have more short term memory slots. (of course, I have to guess his actual speech was much more responsible than these notes by themselves...)
Speaking as someone who has more short term memory slots than anyone (except perhaps one person) I've ever met, I'd like to point out being a good programmer takes a lot more than just that. (Yes, I write assembly at the keyboard without any visible preperation, but that's beside the point) As for a "great" programmer, I don't think I've ever met one, and if I did, I'm not sure exactly how I'd know I had.
Most of it sounds good, my boss meets all but one criteria:
Listens to me when I tell him it can't, or shouldn't be done.
Of course, more than once he's shown me not only that it *can* be done, but that sometimes *it* is the right thing to do. Other times, *it* goes overbudget and never works as intended, but figuring out which is which is never easy.
The GPL gives a legal founding for going after someone who wants to take code that was made public and make it proprietary through extension. Perhaps you're right and it's unnecessary, but the legal climate of software isn't what it was 20 or even 10 years ago.
The public domain is in trouble. If you don't see that perhaps you haven't noticed the 20 year copyright extensions every 20 years. Perhaps you also haven't noticed the tactics of charging for software based on political affiliations and advertising. Example: OEM's that allow a choice of OS on their hardware pay $200 per copy for Windows. Those who will run only Windows on a given setup pay $30-$60 per copy. As a result, I'm forced to buy Windows if I'd like to buy certain hardware! Forget monopolies! Should the copyright holder really wield this kind of power? Since when did buying goods require a "contract" of this nature? Think hard, because we aren't talking about a commodity that can be had elsewhere, the legal right to distribute is Microsoft's alone.
By the way, copyrights and patents are strong expressly because they are supposed to be.
"Supposed to" by who's reckoning?. Regardless, even the founders had their doubts about copyright. Thomas Jefferson, for one, worried about extending monopolies for any reason, even if they were only for "advancing the state of the art". Here's what was actually put on paper:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This certainly does give the fed some power. But, I see two strict limits that certainly look like they're under attack: 1) limited time. 2) To promote the progress... I merely propose that if we are to consider removing those limits, we should also consider throwing the provision out altogether.
Re:Lord help us if those are our only two choices!
on
Borking Outlook Express
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I admit Stallman would make a terrible president, and in fact if he could get his way, he'd most probably push his agenda far further than it should ever go. But, for the moment, I thank him for the GPL since it's the only protection the public domain seems to have from the likes of Microsoft.
Perhaps I should have said the fight between corporate America and the public domain is a fight for survival. That just seemed a little too precocious for my taste. Also, the survival is one sided. Corporate america ain't going nowhere.
As for "abuse of copyright power": This is just one more reason I think copyright needs to be revisited. Control over use of works and even control over price at point of sale is too much. It's a problem when the FSF wields it. It's a problem when Microsoft wields it. Much like the "One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them." it's just too much power for anyone to actually use and stay pure. Extending the terms by 20 years every 20 years just multiplies the problem.
Lord help us if congress doesn't put it's foot down. (Assuming it still has one)
Excellent point. Of course, my "ultimate" time frame is probably even longer than yours, but you'd probably regard religion as "stupid and foolish" so perhaps we can differ comfortably.
I'm looking back at my post, and trying to figure out why it's attached where it is. In any case. Short sightedness is often a problem.
In regards this article I'd say trying to bludgeon the world into following US law without first pausing to decide if the law is actually beneficial certainly fits that criterion. By contrast trying to make a living in a 3rd world country by selling unlicensed works would certainly be "greedy", but doesn't necessarily fit the criterion of short sightedness. After all, it's not as though Britney Spears or the US economy were starving.
In a sense I'd love to agree with you. But in another sense the fight between Microsoft and the GPL is a fight for survival. While I respect the pacifist who stands by while their family and self are murdered, I will never be such a one.
Personally, I think reverse engineering, publishing exploits not addressed, and many other seemingly questionable activities are very important. We must think and act freely if we'd like to continue to do so.
RMS' point was that "any" open format should be used in favor of a very closed proprietary one. Yours seems to be that "one" open format should be dictated for all. The two points don't seem to have much in common to me.
Terminology is a problem here. I use closed and proprietary together to denote the following:
a) it's difficult to reverse engineer.
b) it might someday be *illegal* to reverse engineer.
c) the authors want to keep it mystified in hopes of profit.
d) the authors willingly sabotage competition in hopes of profit.
As for elitism, I have thought about it. Microsoft purposely breaks other people's software by changing their OS and other products. Why shouldn't Free software retaliate in kind?
Note: I run Windows at work, but I can still read/post to such a group. In fact, MS code is all that's required. Lookout and telnet.
Perhaps our working definitions of greed differ? To me, greed is merely enlightened self interest taken to a comfortable maxima. To you, perhaps greed is self interest taken to far too much extreme, with little attempt at enlightenment.
Actually, I argue that your definition of greed doesn't really exist. You see, if you take greed to such an extreme that you harm others in "benefiting" yourself, you'll wind up hurting yourself in the long run. Basically I feel that maximized self interest has to be informed and intelligent enough to realize that others are also important. Knocking over an old lady to get the $20 in her purse would be "stupid and foolish" as opposed to "greedy".
I assert that instead of reducing the power of government as a whole, shifting power to local governments will increase corporate accountability.
I'll agree that shifting power to local governments is important because it increases an individual's choice in where they want to live. However, I also feel that the government as it stands today wields far too much power. Power corrupts. People fail, and whims are no way to make law.
I would hope they take pause. And after pause, I hope they'd bitch slap the evil robber barons promoting these measures until they're sobbing crybabies.
The problem is a "perfect" DRM system would have to be understandable by everyone inolved. In fact it would just about have to be open source and free of charge for the system itself. Anything else would be unreasonable since it would put undue burdens on new entrants to the industry.
I believe such a scheme is possible, but I also think it will require very expensive policing, etc, etc. The real question then: Is the protection of copyright worth such an expensive scheme? To answer this, we probably need to decide: What is the actual "goal" of copyright protection? I haven't heard a single congressperson try to explain how DRM will help improve the "state of the art".
Finally. I have to point out. The schemes we have today are all about obfuscation and thought control, they don't necessarily do any copy protection, they just magnify protection of which uses can be applied to a work. Regardless, this seems the opposite of the system you'd intend where each copy comes with a cost, but no control is made over use. Compulsory licensing a required portion perhaps?
Bottom line. The industry would hate compulsory licensing worse than piracy. DRM is currently much like child protection software. It pretends to do a job that's impossible with the tools being applied to it. Then does a different thing entirely that can make the results seem somewhat similar. ie: instead of protecting copy DRM protects use, and instead of stopping porn censorware blocks criticism. I believe it's called the old bait and switch.
To the invention of phonorecording. Before that, if you wanted to hear music you either hired someone to play it for you or played it yourself, there was qutie a bit of scandal surrounding who's music you could play in public, and what you had to pay for sheets of it.
The phonorecord basically killed the cottage industry that was music at the time it was invented.
Criminal stupidity is the best tool for law enforcement.
If this moron had downloaded PGP, he wouldn't have been caught. If he's not smart enough to download something that available, he's not the crook you should be proud of catching.
It's not the rewarding of greed that's the problem. Greed is what gets the go-getters up in the morning. It seemed to work pretty good for 180 years or so...
The problem here is allowing and encouraging the concentration of power into only a few places. ie: encouraging the Fed to get stronger while the states weaken. Next you see liberal readings of the constitution where the "commerce clause" can justify anything and expensive lobbying efforts can convince a politician nearly anything is reasonable.
Greed has always been rewarded. The US was classically just the country that admitted and used this idea in their laws. Now we're the country with the most powerful governing body in human history. I fear for the future.
Slashdot Mirror
So why am I sitting in an appartment in Bellevue (ie: close suburb of Seattle) reading this page over a 56k dialup link?
If the "last mile" ISP's don't get busy and do some inventing soon I, or someone like me, really will put them out of business.
What's all this about world domination and secure networks?
Note that the computer system you pick to host your Sputnik Gateway will boot and operate entirely from CD-ROM, and must be solely dedicated to functioning as a Sputnik Gateway
If I wanted to use my $2000 laptop (or $500 desktop) as a $200 wireless hub, couldn't I just download linux and set up some firewall rules? Where's the interesting new functionality here?
Why don't I just throw a web login on a can of cheez-whiz and make my own start-up! I'll encrypt it all with 4096 bit encryption and call it secur-a-whiz. Sure you'll have to plug it in to your laptop to use it, but it'll make millions, I swear!
The first survey in 96-97 was of 158 students in 3 different colleges by an economics major interested in piracy. Most of these students were probably friends and/or acquaintances.
The next survey was of 700 students at only 2 universities. This was probably a lot greater spectrum of students many of whom were in less technically oriented majors. ie: Much of the population doesn't know enough or care enough about computers to even begin pirating software.
Perhaps the piracy rates have changed in the past 4 years, perhaps not, but I don't think these surveys will tell us a thing one way or the other.
I shouldn't respond to trolls, but who can resist...
What pisses me off is when I right click, and choose open in a new window and get some javascript error because the moron who wrote the page didn't know what he was doing.
What pisses me off even more is when I move my mouse over a link to see where it goes and it says something like "gotoxy()" instead of telling me where the link points. Who in their right mind would follow a link when they don't know where they might end up? I know if I can't view source and figure it out (assuming I'm interested enough to care...), I usually leave the site never to return.
I beg to differ! I think it's a wonderfully constructed bit of legalese that furthers its goals precisely.
that will hopefully be ruled illegal sometime in the near future.
I totally agree with this point!
If the ideals of the GPL were enacted, or even something close that allows copyright, but not the license cartels we seem to have today, the GPL wouldn't be legally enforceable. And it shouldn't be!! Just like Microsoft's latest version of no-compete/no-reverse engineering cruft shouldn't hold any water. Why should I sign more rights away by installing software than I do by signing a mortgage?
Like most of today's problems, the answer isn't more "rights". For copyright infringement the answer is policing. Just like jaywalking: If you don't punish offenders, no one will obey the law.
How can strong AI be "incorrect"? Does that mean humans aren't intelligent? I think most people would agree that human level intelligence is something humans have not even come close to replicating. Perhaps that was your point?
and you hook those together exactly the same way that real neurons are hooked together ... you could say that you've replicated human consciousness and intellect.
And I could respond that I'll believe you've actually done it when your result passes the Turing test. Turing's whole point, and I think he made it quite well, was that regardless of what you throw into your black box he's got a test that, administered properly, can show whether strong AI has been achieved for all practical purposes.
Of course, with today's techno-frenzy, the thing I worry most about "Turing" tests is that they seem to purposely dumb down expectations in order to make it look like progress is being made. "electronic" pets are a good example. All gene splicing aside, I haven't seen a toy that comes close to replacing my cat. Further, I'll believe Deep Blue is as smart as a human grand master at chess when he enters tournament play as a novice and earns the title properly. Until then, I'll continue to believe I witnessed Kasparov self distructing, rather than some feat of AI.
Only one problem with your scenario. You seem to assume that advertising doesn't matter. It very much does. As television adds become more and more ignored by viewers, advertisers will once again begin to look at the web. Especially considering all the market research benefits it can offer.
Profitable online advertising will come, the only question will be who's left standing to profit from it. (SourceForge and VA may just hold out that long)
Operator overloading can be the bees knees when implemented properly. If it were really too horrible to be used, we wouldn't have operators in language specs at all. The real trick is using it sparingly enough, and in the right places.
//code that really sucks below
int i(256.plus(128));
while( i.doesnotequal(2) ) {
i.minusminus();
}
That said, Java and Python avoid certain abuses quite well, but no language is safe in the hands of a truly bad programmer. What's important is to pick tools people can work with. Then have some iron clad rules that actually get enforced on how development should proceed.
Of course, looking at this AC's original list of requirements, I have to wonder if his boss is looking at their problem space and coming up with solid requirements that will make their solutions easier to create, or simply compiling a list of buzzwords he's read about different languages.
In my mind it's hard to look at a problem and say "I must have garbage collection to do this." or "This just won't be feasible without multiple inheritance." KDE has done a great job of showing just how well GUI's can be written using a language without built in garbage collection. Borland has written a pretty amazing IDE without using multiple inheritance.
jdesbonnet could certainly be right about the boss needing some education, but it could also just be a lack in comunication. Get your boss involved. Get in his head and found out about his past projects. Find out what he's trying to avoid and what he's trying to emulate. Perhaps then the two of you can make some kind of informed decision.
Of course "eyeballs=shallow" is a fallacy, actually, I'm not even sure it means anything. What's shallow? But it's no more messed up than working around the same bugs for 3 years because no one with the proper abilities is in a position to fix them. (A certain problem in SQL server 6.5 installation sticks in my mind.)
All else being equal, More opportunity = more bugs fixed. That's an equation that's a lot tougher to refute. I think it's great when companies have to explain exactly why closing their source is supposed to help their customers instead of just fattening their wallets...
I noticed you didn't touch that one. Perhaps you agree with Mr. Henning on this one point? He seemed to think great programmers have more short term memory slots. (of course, I have to guess his actual speech was much more responsible than these notes by themselves...)
Speaking as someone who has more short term memory slots than anyone (except perhaps one person) I've ever met, I'd like to point out being a good programmer takes a lot more than just that. (Yes, I write assembly at the keyboard without any visible preperation, but that's beside the point) As for a "great" programmer, I don't think I've ever met one, and if I did, I'm not sure exactly how I'd know I had.
Most of it sounds good, my boss meets all but one criteria:
Listens to me when I tell him it can't, or shouldn't be done.
Of course, more than once he's shown me not only that it *can* be done, but that sometimes *it* is the right thing to do. Other times, *it* goes overbudget and never works as intended, but figuring out which is which is never easy.
The GPL gives a legal founding for going after someone who wants to take code that was made public and make it proprietary through extension. Perhaps you're right and it's unnecessary, but the legal climate of software isn't what it was 20 or even 10 years ago.
The public domain is in trouble. If you don't see that perhaps you haven't noticed the 20 year copyright extensions every 20 years. Perhaps you also haven't noticed the tactics of charging for software based on political affiliations and advertising. Example: OEM's that allow a choice of OS on their hardware pay $200 per copy for Windows. Those who will run only Windows on a given setup pay $30-$60 per copy. As a result, I'm forced to buy Windows if I'd like to buy certain hardware! Forget monopolies! Should the copyright holder really wield this kind of power? Since when did buying goods require a "contract" of this nature? Think hard, because we aren't talking about a commodity that can be had elsewhere, the legal right to distribute is Microsoft's alone.
By the way, copyrights and patents are strong expressly because they are supposed to be.
"Supposed to" by who's reckoning?. Regardless, even the founders had their doubts about copyright. Thomas Jefferson, for one, worried about extending monopolies for any reason, even if they were only for "advancing the state of the art". Here's what was actually put on paper:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This certainly does give the fed some power. But, I see two strict limits that certainly look like they're under attack: 1) limited time. 2) To promote the progress... I merely propose that if we are to consider removing those limits, we should also consider throwing the provision out altogether.
I admit Stallman would make a terrible president, and in fact if he could get his way, he'd most probably push his agenda far further than it should ever go. But, for the moment, I thank him for the GPL since it's the only protection the public domain seems to have from the likes of Microsoft.
Perhaps I should have said the fight between corporate America and the public domain is a fight for survival. That just seemed a little too precocious for my taste. Also, the survival is one sided. Corporate america ain't going nowhere.
As for "abuse of copyright power": This is just one more reason I think copyright needs to be revisited. Control over use of works and even control over price at point of sale is too much. It's a problem when the FSF wields it. It's a problem when Microsoft wields it. Much like the "One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them." it's just too much power for anyone to actually use and stay pure. Extending the terms by 20 years every 20 years just multiplies the problem.
Lord help us if congress doesn't put it's foot down. (Assuming it still has one)
Excellent point. Of course, my "ultimate" time frame is probably even longer than yours, but you'd probably regard religion as "stupid and foolish" so perhaps we can differ comfortably.
I'm looking back at my post, and trying to figure out why it's attached where it is. In any case. Short sightedness is often a problem.
In regards this article I'd say trying to bludgeon the world into following US law without first pausing to decide if the law is actually beneficial certainly fits that criterion. By contrast trying to make a living in a 3rd world country by selling unlicensed works would certainly be "greedy", but doesn't necessarily fit the criterion of short sightedness. After all, it's not as though Britney Spears or the US economy were starving.
Bart being Microsoft or Mr. Moffitt?
Perhaps both?
In a sense I'd love to agree with you. But in another sense the fight between Microsoft and the GPL is a fight for survival. While I respect the pacifist who stands by while their family and self are murdered, I will never be such a one.
Personally, I think reverse engineering, publishing exploits not addressed, and many other seemingly questionable activities are very important. We must think and act freely if we'd like to continue to do so.
RMS' point was that "any" open format should be used in favor of a very closed proprietary one. Yours seems to be that "one" open format should be dictated for all. The two points don't seem to have much in common to me.
Terminology is a problem here. I use closed and proprietary together to denote the following:
a) it's difficult to reverse engineer.
b) it might someday be *illegal* to reverse engineer.
c) the authors want to keep it mystified in hopes of profit.
d) the authors willingly sabotage competition in hopes of profit.
As for elitism, I have thought about it. Microsoft purposely breaks other people's software by changing their OS and other products. Why shouldn't Free software retaliate in kind?
Note: I run Windows at work, but I can still read/post to such a group. In fact, MS code is all that's required. Lookout and telnet.
Perhaps our working definitions of greed differ? To me, greed is merely enlightened self interest taken to a comfortable maxima. To you, perhaps greed is self interest taken to far too much extreme, with little attempt at enlightenment.
Actually, I argue that your definition of greed doesn't really exist. You see, if you take greed to such an extreme that you harm others in "benefiting" yourself, you'll wind up hurting yourself in the long run. Basically I feel that maximized self interest has to be informed and intelligent enough to realize that others are also important. Knocking over an old lady to get the $20 in her purse would be "stupid and foolish" as opposed to "greedy".
I'll agree that shifting power to local governments is important because it increases an individual's choice in where they want to live. However, I also feel that the government as it stands today wields far too much power. Power corrupts. People fail, and whims are no way to make law.
I trust only one person to run my life: Me.
Holy cow!! Will you design me a T-shirt?!!!
The problem is a "perfect" DRM system would have to be understandable by everyone inolved. In fact it would just about have to be open source and free of charge for the system itself. Anything else would be unreasonable since it would put undue burdens on new entrants to the industry.
I believe such a scheme is possible, but I also think it will require very expensive policing, etc, etc. The real question then: Is the protection of copyright worth such an expensive scheme? To answer this, we probably need to decide: What is the actual "goal" of copyright protection? I haven't heard a single congressperson try to explain how DRM will help improve the "state of the art".
Finally. I have to point out. The schemes we have today are all about obfuscation and thought control, they don't necessarily do any copy protection, they just magnify protection of which uses can be applied to a work. Regardless, this seems the opposite of the system you'd intend where each copy comes with a cost, but no control is made over use. Compulsory licensing a required portion perhaps?
Bottom line. The industry would hate compulsory licensing worse than piracy. DRM is currently much like child protection software. It pretends to do a job that's impossible with the tools being applied to it. Then does a different thing entirely that can make the results seem somewhat similar. ie: instead of protecting copy DRM protects use, and instead of stopping porn censorware blocks criticism. I believe it's called the old bait and switch.
To the invention of phonorecording. Before that, if you wanted to hear music you either hired someone to play it for you or played it yourself, there was qutie a bit of scandal surrounding who's music you could play in public, and what you had to pay for sheets of it.
The phonorecord basically killed the cottage industry that was music at the time it was invented.
Criminal stupidity is the best tool for law enforcement.
If this moron had downloaded PGP, he wouldn't have been caught. If he's not smart enough to download something that available, he's not the crook you should be proud of catching.
It's not the rewarding of greed that's the problem. Greed is what gets the go-getters up in the morning. It seemed to work pretty good for 180 years or so...
The problem here is allowing and encouraging the concentration of power into only a few places. ie: encouraging the Fed to get stronger while the states weaken. Next you see liberal readings of the constitution where the "commerce clause" can justify anything and expensive lobbying efforts can convince a politician nearly anything is reasonable.
Greed has always been rewarded. The US was classically just the country that admitted and used this idea in their laws. Now we're the country with the most powerful governing body in human history. I fear for the future.
If spider silk resists stretching more than kevlar, I don't see it being much fun to land a lead fall on onna those suckers.
Still, might make great sheaf material. No idea how this would affect diameter though...