This sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything. There isn't any new technology involved and it isn't particularly practical. It is apparent that eventually physical media distribution will go away, but it is also apparent that it is 3-5 years away at least for video content.
What is most interesting to me here is the 1st amendment issues unsolicited marketing brings up. You can argue that much of the information we are presented with is unsolicited and unwanted, from advertising to political retoric. In america however we protect speach, even repugnant speach, because we beliver (at least some of us do) that it is better to err on the side of caution and allow any who would speak out to say their piece. Even if it means that you have to stand up and deny what that person is saying at the top of your lungs. The only speach we restrict is that which is untrue and meant to be damaging. For example shouting fire in a crowded theater, or libelous speach. While advertising, even telemarketing, may be lies it is not often meant to be harmful, it is certainally an annoyance, but not a danger (envronmental issuses aside). We choose not to restrict advertising (well except tobacco, so this argument may be slightly full of it) because even though it is not a good thing, it is better to only restrict speach in dire cercumstances. DDOS attacks on the other hand are meant to harm, even if they are used in protest they go beyond the barrier of speach and cross into action. thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything. There isn't any new technology involved and it isn't particularly practical. It is apparent that eventually physical media distribution will go away, but it is also apparent that it is 3-5 years away at least for video content.
What is most interesting to me here is the 1st amendment issues unsolicited marketing brings up. You can argue that much of the information we are presented with is unsolicited and unwanted, from advertising to political retoric. In america however we protect speach, even repugnant speach, because we beliver (at least some of us do) that it is better to err on the side of caution and allow any who would speak out to say their piece. Even if it means that you have to stand up and deny what that person is saying at the top of your lungs. The only speach we restrict is that which is untrue and meant to be damaging. For example shouting fire in a crowded theater, or libelous speach. While advertising, even telemarketing, may be lies it is not often meant to be harmful, it is certainally an annoyance, but not a danger (envronmental issuses aside). We choose not to restrict advertising (well except tobacco, so this argument may be slightly full of it) because even though it is not a good thing, it is better to only restrict speach in dire cercumstances. DDOS attacks on the other hand are meant to harm, even if they are used in protest they go beyond the barrier of speach and cross into action. thoughts?