from the article - "Investigators believe cable modems that connect Buckeye Express customers to the Internet were altered, allowing computer users unauthorized access to excessive amounts of bandwidth"[emphasis mine]
also from the article - "It's against the law. It's a crime we are going to enforce," the detective said. Mr. Shryock said changing the modem to use more bandwidth is a violation of the customer service agreement. [...again emphasis mine]
...but here's the part i don't get, and i know a thing or 2 about Networking...
(very simplified)Example:
Max bandwidth that Buckeye has = 1Gb/s (with customer cap at 100Mb/s)
4customers online -
1st (with cap) downloading at 100Mb/s
2nd (with cap) downloding at 100Mb/s
3rd (no cap) downloading at 400Mb/s
4th (no cap) downloading at 400Mb/s
---
When customer 5 comes online it's not like his cable modem is going to go "sorry all the bandwidth is being used, try again later".
And you can correct me if i'm wrong but what should happen is something about like this:
1st (with cap) adjusted to ~ 95Mb/s
2nd (with cap) adjusted to ~ 95Mb/s
3rd (no cap ) adjusted to ~360Mb/s
4th (no cap) adjusted to ~ 360Mb/s
5th (with cap) downloading at ~ 90Mb/s
...and this should hold true to the nth customer coming online, with the uncapped customers speeds dropping rapidly to matched the capped customers speeds.
I'll try and make this brief. There are so many things wrong with what you've done in the Paul Trummel case, that i sit here a very dishartened american. So let me put it simply so even you can understand. There are 260 million people in this country who are allowed to observe and report what they have observed. Even if they are not paid for it.
I know this is very oversimplified, but i think you need the simple version because you have gotten too bogged down with the legalize and have forgotten, or never understood the intend of the laws you were put there to uphold.
That's my unpaid observation, and i'm reporting it to you and the Seattleweekly.
As much as we all hate spam, there are effective ways of dealing with it.
The reason I stated this first is because I see a bigger issue here, that
of passing laws to regulate the NET (even for something as objectionable
as SPAM).
If you are for this, you are saying something's should be regulated on the
INTERNET. As soon as you make that statement you loose most of the "absolute"
force behind "The net should be free for all things..." argument.
For anyone who thinks that full disclosure(by anyone) is wrong, you can win
me over by convincing me of one idea.
Convince me that knowledge(any knowledge) is bad. Convince me that there
is ever a case where not knowing is better than knowing. Convince me that
ignorance is in some cases a good thing.
If you can make a reasonable argument for that then i will beleave that full
disclosure is not the best course of action.
thank you for pointing out some very important points. But could you answer
some questions on some of the points you raised.
1) You said - Yahoo has a commercial presence in France, both a web
site (yahoo.fr), and a sales and marketing group based in Paris. This makes
them liable to French law.
Do you mean this makes all of Yahoo liable to French law or just Yahoo.fr?
2) You said - The French court heard that Yahoo was telling customers
they could target banner ads based on IP address blocks, serving up French
banners to French surfers, as well as target specific markets based on keywords.
Again, are you talking about French visitors to Yahoo.fr or Yahoo.com?
3) You said - The court ordered Yahoo to place a disclaimer on auctions
when the IP block matched a French IP address, and the auction contained certain
words mostly associated with nazi memorabilia. By placing a warning on the
web page telling the potential bidder that such sales were against French
law, Yahoo would have absolved itself of any further legal implications of
such an auction.
Are you claiming that at least initially, all the French court was asking
for was a simple pop-up disclaimer on all of Yahoo's sites, and they didn't
insist on taking down Nazi auctions on Yahoo.fr?
What your portraying here is that the French gov made a simple resonable
request of a corporation to comply with it's laws, and that corporation,
for reasons unknown, deceided not to make an effort to do so.
Although you may think the/. folks are a bit zeolous your portrayal of
the French gov as making a meek request and the large Multinational corp.
thumbing its nose at them doesn't quite seem plausable either...
thank you for pointing out some very important points. But could you answer some questions on some of the points you raised.
1) You said - Yahoo has a commercial presence in France, both a web site (yahoo.fr), and a sales and marketing group based in Paris. This makes them liable to French law.
Do you mean this makes all of Yahoo liable to French law or just Yahoo.fr?
2) You said - The French court heard that Yahoo was telling customers they could target banner ads based on IP address blocks, serving up French banners to French surfers, as well as target specific markets based on keywords.
Again, are you talking about French visitors to Yahoo.fr or Yahoo.com?
3) You said - The court ordered Yahoo to place a disclaimer on auctions when the IP block matched a French IP address, and the auction contained certain words mostly associated with nazi memorabilia. By placing a warning on the web page telling the potential bidder that such sales were against French law, Yahoo would have absolved itself of any further legal implications of such an auction.
Are you claiming that at least initially, all the French court was asking for was a simple pop-up disclaimer on all of Yahoo's sites, and they didn't insist on taking down Nazi auctions on Yahoo.fr?
What your portraying here is that the French gov made a simple resonable request of a corporation to comply with it's laws, and that corporation, for reasons unknown, deceided not to make an effort to do so.
Although you may think the/. folks are a bit zeolous your portrayal of the French gov as making a meek request and the large Multinational corp. thumbing its nose at them doesn't quite seem plausable either...
I think this is a great idea... any coders out there that want to run with this.
The whole basis of the RIAA blocking or banning users is because of file name(they don't check to file content). So if Nap or opennap clients were to automatically scramble all file names given to the Napster server and then scramble all serches the same way then Napster could not be held responsible for third party software that bypassed it's "protection measures. And it doesn't matter how difficult or easy the encoding is, as long as it's changed at intervals regular enough to be unmanagable for an automated system to keep up with.
Game, Set, Match!!!
Slashdot Mirror
from the article - "Investigators believe cable modems that connect Buckeye Express customers to the Internet
were altered, allowing computer users unauthorized access to excessive amounts of bandwidth"[emphasis mine]
also from the article - "It's against the law. It's a crime we are going to enforce," the detective
said. Mr. Shryock said changing the modem to use more bandwidth is a violation
of the customer service agreement. [...again emphasis mine]
(very simplified)Example:
Max bandwidth that Buckeye has = 1Gb/s (with customer cap at 100Mb/s)
4customers online -
1st (with cap) downloading at 100Mb/s
2nd (with cap) downloding at 100Mb/s
3rd (no cap) downloading at 400Mb/s
4th (no cap) downloading at 400Mb/s
---
When customer 5 comes online it's not like his cable modem is going to go
"sorry all the bandwidth is being used, try again later".
And you can correct me if i'm wrong but what should happen is something
about like this:
1st (with cap) adjusted to ~ 95Mb/s
2nd (with cap) adjusted to ~ 95Mb/s
3rd (no cap ) adjusted to ~360Mb/s
4th (no cap) adjusted to ~ 360Mb/s
5th (with cap) downloading at ~ 90Mb/s
the uncapped customers speeds dropping rapidly to matched the capped customers
speeds.
Dear Sir,
I'll try and make this brief. There are so many things wrong with what
you've done in the Paul Trummel case, that i sit here a very dishartened american.
So let me put it simply so even you can understand. There are 260 million
people in this country who are allowed to observe and report what they have
observed. Even if they are not paid for it.
I know this is very oversimplified, but i think you need the simple version
because you have gotten too bogged down with the legalize and have forgotten,
or never understood the intend of the laws you were put there to uphold.
That's my unpaid observation, and i'm reporting it to you and the Seattleweekly.
As much as we all hate spam, there are effective ways of dealing with it. The reason I stated this first is because I see a bigger issue here, that of passing laws to regulate the NET (even for something as objectionable as SPAM).
If you are for this, you are saying something's should be regulated on the INTERNET. As soon as you make that statement you loose most of the "absolute" force behind "The net should be free for all things..." argument.
For anyone who thinks that full disclosure(by anyone) is wrong, you can win me over by convincing me of one idea.
Convince me that knowledge(any knowledge) is bad. Convince me that there is ever a case where not knowing is better than knowing. Convince me that ignorance is in some cases a good thing.
If you can make a reasonable argument for that then i will beleave that full disclosure is not the best course of action.
thank you for pointing out some very important points. But could you answer some questions on some of the points you raised.
/. folks are a bit zeolous your portrayal of
the French gov as making a meek request and the large Multinational corp.
thumbing its nose at them doesn't quite seem plausable either...
1) You said - Yahoo has a commercial presence in France, both a web site (yahoo.fr), and a sales and marketing group based in Paris. This makes them liable to French law.
Do you mean this makes all of Yahoo liable to French law or just Yahoo.fr?
2) You said - The French court heard that Yahoo was telling customers they could target banner ads based on IP address blocks, serving up French banners to French surfers, as well as target specific markets based on keywords.
Again, are you talking about French visitors to Yahoo.fr or Yahoo.com?
3) You said - The court ordered Yahoo to place a disclaimer on auctions when the IP block matched a French IP address, and the auction contained certain words mostly associated with nazi memorabilia. By placing a warning on the web page telling the potential bidder that such sales were against French law, Yahoo would have absolved itself of any further legal implications of such an auction.
Are you claiming that at least initially, all the French court was asking for was a simple pop-up disclaimer on all of Yahoo's sites, and they didn't insist on taking down Nazi auctions on Yahoo.fr?
What your portraying here is that the French gov made a simple resonable request of a corporation to comply with it's laws, and that corporation, for reasons unknown, deceided not to make an effort to do so.
Although you may think the
thank you for pointing out some very important points. But could you answer some questions on some of the points you raised. 1) You said - Yahoo has a commercial presence in France, both a web site (yahoo.fr), and a sales and marketing group based in Paris. This makes them liable to French law. Do you mean this makes all of Yahoo liable to French law or just Yahoo.fr? 2) You said - The French court heard that Yahoo was telling customers they could target banner ads based on IP address blocks, serving up French banners to French surfers, as well as target specific markets based on keywords. Again, are you talking about French visitors to Yahoo.fr or Yahoo.com? 3) You said - The court ordered Yahoo to place a disclaimer on auctions when the IP block matched a French IP address, and the auction contained certain words mostly associated with nazi memorabilia. By placing a warning on the web page telling the potential bidder that such sales were against French law, Yahoo would have absolved itself of any further legal implications of such an auction. Are you claiming that at least initially, all the French court was asking for was a simple pop-up disclaimer on all of Yahoo's sites, and they didn't insist on taking down Nazi auctions on Yahoo.fr? What your portraying here is that the French gov made a simple resonable request of a corporation to comply with it's laws, and that corporation, for reasons unknown, deceided not to make an effort to do so. Although you may think the /. folks are a bit zeolous your portrayal of the French gov as making a meek request and the large Multinational corp. thumbing its nose at them doesn't quite seem plausable either...
I think this is a great idea... any coders out there that want to run with this. The whole basis of the RIAA blocking or banning users is because of file name(they don't check to file content). So if Nap or opennap clients were to automatically scramble all file names given to the Napster server and then scramble all serches the same way then Napster could not be held responsible for third party software that bypassed it's "protection measures. And it doesn't matter how difficult or easy the encoding is, as long as it's changed at intervals regular enough to be unmanagable for an automated system to keep up with. Game, Set, Match!!!