Mass-producing quantum computers would require fabs to completely overhaul the existing equipment that they purchased for the production of Silicon chips. Considering how long it took Intel to merely migrate to hardware that would allow them to produce chips at.18 micron instead of.25 micron, I would not expect existing companies to migrate to the production of quantum computers until well after they have been used as supercomputers for a few years. We may see quantun supercomputers being produced within the next 20 years, but it will probably be far longer before people can purchase them for home use.
I wonder how the price of the Transmeta unit will compare to those of the Intel-powered slimnotes. It seems like this unit will be pit against mini-notebooks like the Toshiba Libretto. If you have ever used one of these, you will recognize how difficult it is to use these smaller notebooks productively and how lacking they are as far as functionality and expandability (not to mention their inflated price). Since Transmeta's chips require less power, Sony can use a cheaper, lighter and less powerful battery without affecting runtime, so maybe this will help their slimnote be cheaper and lighter than those made by Toshiba, using the Intel chips.
If a user is technically proficient enough to install Linux, then what would he want with AOL? Besides, Linux users would be such a small market for them that I wonder why they are bothering to release this client...unless we can expect some Linux Internet appliances from them in the near future:-).
Believe me, if I had the time and expertise to create an ultra-efficient P2P file-sharing application, I would, but I do not./. is a forum where ideas can be batted around; I am not commanding you to code an application I want, I'm merely offering a suggestion--take it for what it's worth.
The market for peer to peer file sharing is already diluted, with most (Napster, Scour, etc.) concentrating on multimedia files. I do not want a program that only targets a specific niche, as I will then need XX different programs just to share all of my files over a network. FreeNet will probably only capture a small user base because of its complexity and the implications of storing portions of other people's potentially illegal information on your computer.
Instead of integrating micropayments or encouraging users to pay for downloaded songs, I would like to see a content-neutral *efficient* file sharing system. It should be both like Microsoft File Sharing/FServes, where you find the name of friends computer and download his files, if you have the right password, and Napster, where you can search the entire network for unprotected files. It should not require a central server but, unlike Gnutella, which is incredibly inefficient, it should immediately query the "server" that it connects to for all IP addresses that it is connected to, cache ALL hosts, and immediately announce itself to the network. It should not respond to search requests unless it has a hit--all file system information should be cached in memory.
I want flexibility and performance, not a program designed to handle only a certain type of file that the developer allows. The web has evolved into what it is today because it is a trivial task to extend HTML to embed new multimedia enhancements, and it can link to files of all types. Why should we accept file-sharing programs that are unneccesarily restrictive?
The only people who this service would benefit are those who live in poor or rural areas where Internet access is uncommon. The article says that e-mail terminals might be installed at post offices, allowing people who might otherwise not have access to a computer to access e-mail.
For the rest of us who already have e-mail addresses, I simply do not see the point. There are already numerous free e-mail forwarding/web e-mail services available and the convenience of an e-mail address that is the same as your delivery address would not justify opening the floodgates for SPAM. Imagine all of the junk mail that you receive today and multiply it by 25 since the sender will not need to pay anything to send messages to your associated e-mail address.
Since this service is likely to attract only people who cannot afford normal Internet access or e-mail, I fail to see why advertisers would be interested in their demographic. This service seems destined to fail, IMHO.
I wonder how the use of this compression algorithm would impact rendering speed (and possibly require a loss in quality). Whereas an uncompressed 3D environment would transmit a wireframe representation of each object with associated texture information and lighting info, and merely requires the client to perform the necessary ray-tracing. I am not familiar with wavelets and was wondering what additional interpretation msut be done on the client side and how that would impact overall rendering performance/quality.
Compaies Should Only Offer Loaners
on
Nvidia Apologizes
·
· Score: 3
By giving away an expensive piece of hardware in exchange for a review, companies like NVidia are using similar tactics to the record execs who paid off radio stations to play their label's songs. The fact is that those Geforce2 cards cost a few hundred dollars apiece and the banner-revenue from the reviewer's site may not even be equivalent to the value of the card.
All hardware submitted for review should be sent with pre-paid return packaging. After the company receives the hardware in return, they can ship the same unit to another reviewer. In this model, sites receive no financial incentive to review specific products, while even the smallest sites will be able to receive hardware to review. The manufacturers safe a few dollars and the sites have no ethical dillemas.
Gnutella is not technically superior. Its protocol wastes ungodly amounts of bandwidth. Being decentralized doesn't mean you're technically superior. Of course it uses more bandwidth than Napster, because it must pass search requests across multiple computers in the network, that relay them. You have to ensure the integrity of the data and you have no "trusted" server that is a middle man for all requests and subsequently have a lot of auto-SPAM. That being said, Gnutella could have been almost no-maintenance and could have been a significant cash-cow for AOL that would give them the dominance in file-transfers that they enjoy in IM. Instead, they chose to suppress it and force it underground so as not to upset Time-Warner before the merger.
$260,000/y in "prizes" would be very expensive. In case you were not aware, Napster is currently spending $2mil. to promote the Limp Bizkit tour--it would take almost 8 years of prizes to equal this amount (I mentioned this in my original post).
Crippleware won't compete in the long term. It is not "crippleware" since even the premium version is free (it just contains ads). Real was able to sell a large number of copies of its Plus player, without offering the additional functionality that Napster could. The addition of affiliate links and merchandise offers could be viewed as "convenience features" since many people will later purchase the same music that they are currently downloading.
Plus when Napster first existed, it had no means of providing a "buy this CD," financially. This functionality is easy to add. Remember that you merely need to link to affiliate programs and not actually sell the CDs yourself. That way, you do not need to set up a distribution network and incur any additional overhead.
They would have just as much legal trouble, had they attempted to make Napster a peer-to-peer radio station. This is probably true, because of the DMCA's prohibition against taking "requests" for music over the Internet. However, they would be receiving much better press and would not have to fend off suits from Metallica and Dr. Dre (who now believe that their music is commoditized).
Kinda hard to do change everything without alienating your users
All you need to do is include auto-update "functionality" in the program that is downloaded from the Napster web page. Gradually phase these elements into the software for new users and update existing users' software after every X builds. Eventually both versions will be synchronized and Napster will have multiple revenue streams. Remember, most of Napster's incredible growth occured *after* Napster was incorporated, so the new commercial version of the software should have been released with ads and product placement.
I DID read some of the interviews and suggested #1 (a premium "ad-ware" release) knowing that there was already a freeware version in circulation. If I recall correctly, early versions of Napster did not have the Chat and community features of the current version. Hence, I developed the above list fully aware of the circumstances of Napster's development.
Remember, almsot all of the media attention was given to Napster *after they were incorporated.* Consequently, #4 and #5 could be implemented regardless of the original intended purpose of Napster.
More significantly, the company repeatedly has tried to stymie independent software developers working on Napster-compatible software and Web sites.
You are operating under the assumption that making Napster an open system would benefit its users. If people were allowed to develop their own clients that could interact with Napster's network, you would have the same problem with automated SPAM and virus distribution that you have with Gnutella. While there were rumors that users who accessed Napigator were being locked out of their network, these rumors were never substantiated. In fact, Napster *never* explicitly prevents users from accessing clone networks or reverse engineered utilities. In contrast, users of AOL IM are unable to even communicate with users of AOL's own ICQ service let alone the users of other networks.
The company has refused to share technical information about its software code, has made changes to its software that have prevented other programs from working with Napster's own and has blocked computers from outside music sites from accessing Napster's database of hundreds of thousands of songs.
Most companies refuse to share technical information about their software's source code. While Napster could attempt to enforce its ban on reverse-engineering and the use of bots, it has *not.* Napigator is still around and Napster never even filed charges against Metallica's detective firm for using a bot to spy on their network (a mistake, IMHO). Napster has decided *not* to continue using Ebay-like tactics to prevent their site from being meta-searched by Napigator, and its files continue to be visible.
The "sharing" that Napster advocates does not constitute forcing the bands to allow fans to make derivative works in spite of their copyright. Why is it hypocracy for them not to openly support derivative works of Napster (although they do not even actively enforce a prohibition of derivative works now)? They may not be following the open-source code of ethics, but *they are not open source developers.*
I disagree; Napster could have been wildly profitable if they played their cards right at the beginning:
1) Make 2 versions of Napster: one with just file-sharing capabilities to be released into the public domain, and one piece of "ad-ware" with premium features like chat, etc. Most users will only download the public-domain version, but judging from the number of people in Napster chat rooms, you would have at least 10,000 regular and 100,000 infrequent users of the premium version (at current rates, generating about $50k/month--not much)
2) Hardcode all versions of Napster to only connect to Napster.com. Even though competitors would spring up that use reverse-engineered servers with a modified version of the public-domain client, Napster could be sure that the vast majority of users who downloaded their software would use thier network exclusively without prohibiting reverse-engineering. Remember, Gnutella is technically superior but has far fewer users; Napster has a significant first-mover advantage.
3) Have the search results panel split beteen the matching MP3s with a "buy the single" affiliate link next to it, and affiliate links to buy merchandise and albums from the Bands whose MP3s are listed. Since most of Napster's users are music enthusiasts who already buy music on the Internet, this would be very convenient and incredibly profitable.
4) Instead of making "sharing" the theme of the service, make it "try before you buy" and "radio on-demand." This would give it a similar role to radio stations, exposing users to interesting music and effectively promoting all of the bands whose music is exchanged. Since purchasing the music is even more encouraged in this service, than it is with traditional radio stations, they would not have as much legal trouble.
5) Hold weekly promotions and contests that feature unsigned artists. This would be a huge traffic draw to their network that would cost almost nothing to organize (the top prize does not even need to be more than $5000 a week). These promotions would be far more effective than the Limp Bizkit tour at getting people to the Napster site and *keeping them there.* In addition, it would draw people who are more obsessed music fans (who are more likely to buy stuff) to the service. Plus, it would be years before it racks up a total cost of $2mil. Also, it would enhance Napster's image as a company that promotes unsigned artists instead of a service that specializes in pirating music.
Remember, the benefit of Peer-to-peer networks is that they have very low operating costs. Only searches and chats consume Napster's bandwidth; all transfers occur independently of their system and consume none of their bandwidth. All "content" is user-supplied and therefore content-generation costs no more than customer acquisition.
Considering how inexpensive the operating costs are, Napster could turn a serious profit if their MBAs/investors were not incompetant. I am only 18, with no business experience, and I can come up with this strategy; the investors that have jumped on board and the management staff they hired simply have not added any value to company, so it was foolish to surrender so much equity to them and give them control of the company.
/. only posts a few stories a day. After receiving notice of a story that seems interesting, they should *verify it* by contacting the company/organization/etc. that is being discussed. Would the [major metropolitan daily newspaper] publish a story based on an unverified anonymous tip, without verifying it? This is the standard that/. should be held to; if the story is unverifiable, then they should either choose another to post, or post it with a disclaimer.
Unfortunately, the article ignores the distinction between copyright law and trademark law. Napster is advocating the sharing of copyrighted works, citing fair-use as justification for its position. Even if what couls be considered copyright infringement does occur, it does not diminish the copyright in the same way that unlicensed use of a trademark diminishes a trademark.
A trademark holder is required to actively protect its trademark in order to keep it out of the public domain--no such provision exists for copyrights. Therefore Napster is *legally obligated* to prevent unlicensed use of the Napster trademark in shirts/hats/etc. in order to ensure that 100,000 new distributed file-sharing projects do not have the ability to call themselves "Napster."
Trademarks are never "shared" over Napster, only copyrighted works are. Consequently, I do not see the hypocrisy.
(The one interesting point the article makes is about Napster's corporate structure and equity positions. I was unaware that the investors were able to pry over 90% of the company away from the founder. Fanning is an excellent developer, but he must be a *lousy* businessman.)
This is the second hoax that/. has ran in the last couple of months alone (remember the potato computer). Do you think they will post about the "human brain on a PCI card" that I developed and ship with a card detailing the life of the cadaver the raw materials were taken from?
Seriously, guys, it is incidents like these that prevent/. from being a respectable news outlet.
Remember that King is only counting those who download from his web site. Assuming that his text files are transferred over Gnutella and not counted as the number of downloads, many more people will have the opportunity to send him $1 than those who download from his site. Consequently, 75% of the downloads from his site may be equal to about 15-25% of the total readership. Also, there is a novelty to this distribution scheme. I have never read King's work and really do not have an interest in horror, but I may just send him $1 because of his application of this interesting distribution mechanism. Plus, think of all the free press that he is getting, easily worth a few thousand dollars.
Besides, King is also capitalizing on the Internet community's need to feel honest and moral now that their value system is coming into question. Many people may send him money to alleviate their own guilt instead of rewarding him for his work. There was a study on "tipping" published a few months ago that claimed our desire to top is not motivated by rewarding the person providing a service but rather making ourselves feel better and reinforcing our own sense of power and control over the transaction. Regardless of how it pans out, King should be rewarded for the effort. Besides, how many authors get paid lots of money before they even finish their books (not an advance that must be paid back, but actual compensation)?
Microsoft responds by giving computers with its OS away for free. It's sole purpose, with such an action, is to kill Charlie Brown's company, potentially at great expense to itself. Is that behavior unethical?
I disagree; shareholders represent a third party that trusts the company's management to protect their investment. If I hand you walk up to you on the street and put $1000 in your hand, saying: "I entrust you with this money in the hope that you will do the best you can to ensure that I receive at least $1000 in return," and you accept, you have an ethical obligation to protect that money that must be considered alongside conflicting ethical imperatives.
Let's say that you return home and read that a non-profit organization that you support is in dire need of money; is it ethical to give part of the $1000 as a donation ("a corporation is not in the business of giving charitable contributions"--it is unethical to give somebody else's money to a charity that you support, even though giving charity is, itself, an ethical act). As indicated in this example, the fact that you are using other people's money as working capital modifies the normal "code" of ethics.
A public corporation, when established, is deliberately given the status of an individual separate from its founders. While the founders may have a controlling interest, they must recognize that they make up only a percentage of the entire organization and have an obligation to those who they presumably represent.
With unregulated content-neutral file sharing programs like Gnutella around, I fail to see the advantage of using an advertiser-supported service that bans copyrighted content. If one feels morally obliged not to download pirated material, he can still use Gnutella to find the legal files that he is looking for. Even for the service's target audience, there is no benefit to using this service and no cost-advantage that would justify paying a subscription fee.
I fully support the industry's attempt to use a distributed distribution mechanism for legal media, but I think that they need to add value to such a service if they want it to succeed. Value-added services like real-time voice chats with celebrities, access to movies and music before they officially debut, etc. that cannot be replicated by Napster/Gnutella are what is needed to drive such a service.
I remember a case from a while back where a reporter was actually jailed for obstruction of justice because he was protecting a confidential source. While this story is now making headlines and generating positive publicity for Penenburg, he is able to be principled. Let's see what happens when he is threatened with jail time, though.
I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether Slashdot should go to the same length to protect sources (presumably ACs) who indulge in criminal behavior. Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly.
After the recent court decision, which determined that spidering Ebay's website to populate a metasearch engine is illegal use of Ebay's system resources, couldn't the affected networks file the same charges against Qouva? Quova intends to profit from information that it gathers using techniques, which: cause unwanted logs to be appended to the logfile, ping (contact) the affected company's network, and cause incidental damages relating to responding to "false alarms."
<offtopic>It is odd that a company officer would so completely contradict the statement concerning the company's mission. If the company is causing all of these problems without even being certain of its own function, let alone business plan, then how the f*** were they able to get funded?</offtopic>
No, I meant that viruses would be designed to compromise an individual company's security and they would not have the expertise on hand to combat it. Securing a system against script kiddies is as easy as ensuring that you have all of the latest system patches installed, as their "rootkits" usually come out after the issue is reported, and have no major holes.
Securing your system against a coordinated attack means having *real humans* constantly monitor system usage to look for suspicious usage patterns. In addition, it should be ready to divert a team of developers from their core business to immediately respond to any potential threats. Merely securing the system after the fact (like filtering out VBS extensions *after* being hit by "ILOVEYOU," as so many sysadmins did), is not sufficient as vital information is vulnerable as soon as the system is penetrated, and is easily accessible if the crackers are prepared and know where to look.
Most organizations do not encrypt internal documents, regardless of their importance; those that do probably have many users with their encryption string the same as their network password! Without adequate ssafeguards protecting information from being compromised even if the cracker has root access, the possibility of espionage exists.
As you can see from the article, the crackers knew little about the underlying OS and the stolen subscriber list (this may be from another article) was the only important data that was compromised. The mentality seems to be that of the hunt--in all but one of the cases, the cracker only wanted to get root access to *a* system--they did not care about how that system was used. As a result, they could do nothing more than say "I got in" or destroy files (and especially sensitive files will be backed up). They do not take the time to study the machine they break into because they really do not care--their callous indifference prevents them from utilizing their access to steal proprietary information. In addition, they are motivated by boredom and a desire to prove themselves, not financial gain.
By far, the most debilitating aspect of the script kiddies is that they are unorganized and unfunded. It is the difference between an army and a group of thugs--as long as there is little collaboration (not that many of them possess significant knowledge or ability), then chaos reigns and isolated cases or damage are more common than coordinated assaults on vital systems. Right now, it is a game of craps--if they happen to hit an important system, it is not through any planning on their part. The danger comes when specific, critical systems are targetted.
Script Kiddies pose little threat because they are easily deterred. If the sysadmin installs all of the latest patches and is diligent about dealing with known issues, then the script kiddies "favorite utils" will not work. Since they have no need to crack *that particular system,* they will move on. It is just like when a common thief sees that a house is protected by a burglar alarm, he will just move on in favor of more vulnerable targets. In the case of script kiddies, they do not possess the knowledge to crack a well-protected system even if they tried, so the threat is further reduced.
In a worst case scenario, script kiddies manage to delete all files on the main file server. The organization may experience 1-2 days of downtime and a few $100,000s - $1,000,000s in lost productivity. Eventually, the system will be restored and the people will return to work. Now, imagine that there is a coordinated assault against *your* server. You are a publicly traded company that is scheduled to report its quarterly earnings in a week; suddenly, hackers enter your system and seem to just delete all of your files. Almost immediately, your shares lose 1/3 of their value as one of your largest institutional shareholders sells its entire holdings in "anticipation" of your earnings report. Executives lose lots of money and you may be subject to an SEC investigation and shareholder lawsuits alleging insider trading. Which is more of a threat to your organizations long-term stability?
Slashdot Mirror
Has anybody actually purchased one of these Lego Mindstorm kits? Was it easy to work with? For what age group would it make a good gift?
Mass-producing quantum computers would require fabs to completely overhaul the existing equipment that they purchased for the production of Silicon chips. Considering how long it took Intel to merely migrate to hardware that would allow them to produce chips at .18 micron instead of .25 micron, I would not expect existing companies to migrate to the production of quantum computers until well after they have been used as supercomputers for a few years. We may see quantun supercomputers being produced within the next 20 years, but it will probably be far longer before people can purchase them for home use.
I wonder how the price of the Transmeta unit will compare to those of the Intel-powered slimnotes. It seems like this unit will be pit against mini-notebooks like the Toshiba Libretto. If you have ever used one of these, you will recognize how difficult it is to use these smaller notebooks productively and how lacking they are as far as functionality and expandability (not to mention their inflated price). Since Transmeta's chips require less power, Sony can use a cheaper, lighter and less powerful battery without affecting runtime, so maybe this will help their slimnote be cheaper and lighter than those made by Toshiba, using the Intel chips.
If a user is technically proficient enough to install Linux, then what would he want with AOL? Besides, Linux users would be such a small market for them that I wonder why they are bothering to release this client...unless we can expect some Linux Internet appliances from them in the near future :-).
Believe me, if I had the time and expertise to create an ultra-efficient P2P file-sharing application, I would, but I do not. /. is a forum where ideas can be batted around; I am not commanding you to code an application I want, I'm merely offering a suggestion--take it for what it's worth.
The market for peer to peer file sharing is already diluted, with most (Napster, Scour, etc.) concentrating on multimedia files. I do not want a program that only targets a specific niche, as I will then need XX different programs just to share all of my files over a network. FreeNet will probably only capture a small user base because of its complexity and the implications of storing portions of other people's potentially illegal information on your computer.
Instead of integrating micropayments or encouraging users to pay for downloaded songs, I would like to see a content-neutral *efficient* file sharing system. It should be both like Microsoft File Sharing/FServes, where you find the name of friends computer and download his files, if you have the right password, and Napster, where you can search the entire network for unprotected files. It should not require a central server but, unlike Gnutella, which is incredibly inefficient, it should immediately query the "server" that it connects to for all IP addresses that it is connected to, cache ALL hosts, and immediately announce itself to the network. It should not respond to search requests unless it has a hit--all file system information should be cached in memory.
I want flexibility and performance, not a program designed to handle only a certain type of file that the developer allows. The web has evolved into what it is today because it is a trivial task to extend HTML to embed new multimedia enhancements, and it can link to files of all types. Why should we accept file-sharing programs that are unneccesarily restrictive?
The only people who this service would benefit are those who live in poor or rural areas where Internet access is uncommon. The article says that e-mail terminals might be installed at post offices, allowing people who might otherwise not have access to a computer to access e-mail.
For the rest of us who already have e-mail addresses, I simply do not see the point. There are already numerous free e-mail forwarding/web e-mail services available and the convenience of an e-mail address that is the same as your delivery address would not justify opening the floodgates for SPAM. Imagine all of the junk mail that you receive today and multiply it by 25 since the sender will not need to pay anything to send messages to your associated e-mail address.
Since this service is likely to attract only people who cannot afford normal Internet access or e-mail, I fail to see why advertisers would be interested in their demographic. This service seems destined to fail, IMHO.
I wonder how the use of this compression algorithm would impact rendering speed (and possibly require a loss in quality). Whereas an uncompressed 3D environment would transmit a wireframe representation of each object with associated texture information and lighting info, and merely requires the client to perform the necessary ray-tracing. I am not familiar with wavelets and was wondering what additional interpretation msut be done on the client side and how that would impact overall rendering performance/quality.
By giving away an expensive piece of hardware in exchange for a review, companies like NVidia are using similar tactics to the record execs who paid off radio stations to play their label's songs. The fact is that those Geforce2 cards cost a few hundred dollars apiece and the banner-revenue from the reviewer's site may not even be equivalent to the value of the card.
All hardware submitted for review should be sent with pre-paid return packaging. After the company receives the hardware in return, they can ship the same unit to another reviewer. In this model, sites receive no financial incentive to review specific products, while even the smallest sites will be able to receive hardware to review. The manufacturers safe a few dollars and the sites have no ethical dillemas.
Gnutella is not technically superior. Its protocol wastes ungodly amounts of bandwidth. Being decentralized doesn't mean you're technically superior.
Of course it uses more bandwidth than Napster, because it must pass search requests across multiple computers in the network, that relay them. You have to ensure the integrity of the data and you have no "trusted" server that is a middle man for all requests and subsequently have a lot of auto-SPAM. That being said, Gnutella could have been almost no-maintenance and could have been a significant cash-cow for AOL that would give them the dominance in file-transfers that they enjoy in IM. Instead, they chose to suppress it and force it underground so as not to upset Time-Warner before the merger.
$260,000/y in "prizes" would be very expensive.
In case you were not aware, Napster is currently spending $2mil. to promote the Limp Bizkit tour--it would take almost 8 years of prizes to equal this amount (I mentioned this in my original post).
Crippleware won't compete in the long term.
It is not "crippleware" since even the premium version is free (it just contains ads). Real was able to sell a large number of copies of its Plus player, without offering the additional functionality that Napster could. The addition of affiliate links and merchandise offers could be viewed as "convenience features" since many people will later purchase the same music that they are currently downloading.
Plus when Napster first existed, it had no means of providing a "buy this CD," financially.
This functionality is easy to add. Remember that you merely need to link to affiliate programs and not actually sell the CDs yourself. That way, you do not need to set up a distribution network and incur any additional overhead.
They would have just as much legal trouble, had they attempted to make Napster a peer-to-peer radio station.
This is probably true, because of the DMCA's prohibition against taking "requests" for music over the Internet. However, they would be receiving much better press and would not have to fend off suits from Metallica and Dr. Dre (who now believe that their music is commoditized).
Kinda hard to do change everything without alienating your users
All you need to do is include auto-update "functionality" in the program that is downloaded from the Napster web page. Gradually phase these elements into the software for new users and update existing users' software after every X builds. Eventually both versions will be synchronized and Napster will have multiple revenue streams. Remember, most of Napster's incredible growth occured *after* Napster was incorporated, so the new commercial version of the software should have been released with ads and product placement.
I DID read some of the interviews and suggested #1 (a premium "ad-ware" release) knowing that there was already a freeware version in circulation. If I recall correctly, early versions of Napster did not have the Chat and community features of the current version. Hence, I developed the above list fully aware of the circumstances of Napster's development.
Remember, almsot all of the media attention was given to Napster *after they were incorporated.* Consequently, #4 and #5 could be implemented regardless of the original intended purpose of Napster.
More significantly, the company repeatedly has tried to stymie independent software developers working on Napster-compatible software and Web sites.
You are operating under the assumption that making Napster an open system would benefit its users. If people were allowed to develop their own clients that could interact with Napster's network, you would have the same problem with automated SPAM and virus distribution that you have with Gnutella. While there were rumors that users who accessed Napigator were being locked out of their network, these rumors were never substantiated. In fact, Napster *never* explicitly prevents users from accessing clone networks or reverse engineered utilities. In contrast, users of AOL IM are unable to even communicate with users of AOL's own ICQ service let alone the users of other networks.
The company has refused to share technical information about its software code, has made changes to its software that have prevented other programs from working with Napster's own and has blocked computers from outside music sites from accessing Napster's database of hundreds of thousands of songs.
Most companies refuse to share technical information about their software's source code. While Napster could attempt to enforce its ban on reverse-engineering and the use of bots, it has *not.* Napigator is still around and Napster never even filed charges against Metallica's detective firm for using a bot to spy on their network (a mistake, IMHO). Napster has decided *not* to continue using Ebay-like tactics to prevent their site from being meta-searched by Napigator, and its files continue to be visible.
The "sharing" that Napster advocates does not constitute forcing the bands to allow fans to make derivative works in spite of their copyright. Why is it hypocracy for them not to openly support derivative works of Napster (although they do not even actively enforce a prohibition of derivative works now)? They may not be following the open-source code of ethics, but *they are not open source developers.*
never send a capatalist to do an activist's job
This is a very good point.
I disagree; Napster could have been wildly profitable if they played their cards right at the beginning:
1) Make 2 versions of Napster: one with just file-sharing capabilities to be released into the public domain, and one piece of "ad-ware" with premium features like chat, etc. Most users will only download the public-domain version, but judging from the number of people in Napster chat rooms, you would have at least 10,000 regular and 100,000 infrequent users of the premium version (at current rates, generating about $50k/month--not much)
2) Hardcode all versions of Napster to only connect to Napster.com. Even though competitors would spring up that use reverse-engineered servers with a modified version of the public-domain client, Napster could be sure that the vast majority of users who downloaded their software would use thier network exclusively without prohibiting reverse-engineering. Remember, Gnutella is technically superior but has far fewer users; Napster has a significant first-mover advantage.
3) Have the search results panel split beteen the matching MP3s with a "buy the single" affiliate link next to it, and affiliate links to buy merchandise and albums from the Bands whose MP3s are listed. Since most of Napster's users are music enthusiasts who already buy music on the Internet, this would be very convenient and incredibly profitable.
4) Instead of making "sharing" the theme of the service, make it "try before you buy" and "radio on-demand." This would give it a similar role to radio stations, exposing users to interesting music and effectively promoting all of the bands whose music is exchanged. Since purchasing the music is even more encouraged in this service, than it is with traditional radio stations, they would not have as much legal trouble.
5) Hold weekly promotions and contests that feature unsigned artists. This would be a huge traffic draw to their network that would cost almost nothing to organize (the top prize does not even need to be more than $5000 a week). These promotions would be far more effective than the Limp Bizkit tour at getting people to the Napster site and *keeping them there.* In addition, it would draw people who are more obsessed music fans (who are more likely to buy stuff) to the service. Plus, it would be years before it racks up a total cost of $2mil. Also, it would enhance Napster's image as a company that promotes unsigned artists instead of a service that specializes in pirating music.
Remember, the benefit of Peer-to-peer networks is that they have very low operating costs. Only searches and chats consume Napster's bandwidth; all transfers occur independently of their system and consume none of their bandwidth. All "content" is user-supplied and therefore content-generation costs no more than customer acquisition.
Considering how inexpensive the operating costs are, Napster could turn a serious profit if their MBAs/investors were not incompetant. I am only 18, with no business experience, and I can come up with this strategy; the investors that have jumped on board and the management staff they hired simply have not added any value to company, so it was foolish to surrender so much equity to them and give them control of the company.
Just my $.02.
/. only posts a few stories a day. After receiving notice of a story that seems interesting, they should *verify it* by contacting the company/organization/etc. that is being discussed. Would the [major metropolitan daily newspaper] publish a story based on an unverified anonymous tip, without verifying it? This is the standard that /. should be held to; if the story is unverifiable, then they should either choose another to post, or post it with a disclaimer.
Unfortunately, the article ignores the distinction between copyright law and trademark law. Napster is advocating the sharing of copyrighted works, citing fair-use as justification for its position. Even if what couls be considered copyright infringement does occur, it does not diminish the copyright in the same way that unlicensed use of a trademark diminishes a trademark.
A trademark holder is required to actively protect its trademark in order to keep it out of the public domain--no such provision exists for copyrights. Therefore Napster is *legally obligated* to prevent unlicensed use of the Napster trademark in shirts/hats/etc. in order to ensure that 100,000 new distributed file-sharing projects do not have the ability to call themselves "Napster."
Trademarks are never "shared" over Napster, only copyrighted works are. Consequently, I do not see the hypocrisy.
(The one interesting point the article makes is about Napster's corporate structure and equity positions. I was unaware that the investors were able to pry over 90% of the company away from the founder. Fanning is an excellent developer, but he must be a *lousy* businessman.)
This is the second hoax that /. has ran in the last couple of months alone (remember the potato computer). Do you think they will post about the "human brain on a PCI card" that I developed and ship with a card detailing the life of the cadaver the raw materials were taken from?
/. from being a respectable news outlet.
Seriously, guys, it is incidents like these that prevent
Remember that King is only counting those who download from his web site. Assuming that his text files are transferred over Gnutella and not counted as the number of downloads, many more people will have the opportunity to send him $1 than those who download from his site. Consequently, 75% of the downloads from his site may be equal to about 15-25% of the total readership. Also, there is a novelty to this distribution scheme. I have never read King's work and really do not have an interest in horror, but I may just send him $1 because of his application of this interesting distribution mechanism. Plus, think of all the free press that he is getting, easily worth a few thousand dollars.
Besides, King is also capitalizing on the Internet community's need to feel honest and moral now that their value system is coming into question. Many people may send him money to alleviate their own guilt instead of rewarding him for his work. There was a study on "tipping" published a few months ago that claimed our desire to top is not motivated by rewarding the person providing a service but rather making ourselves feel better and reinforcing our own sense of power and control over the transaction. Regardless of how it pans out, King should be rewarded for the effort. Besides, how many authors get paid lots of money before they even finish their books (not an advance that must be paid back, but actual compensation)?
What about the following theoretical scenario:
Microsoft responds by giving computers with its OS away for free. It's sole purpose, with such an action, is to kill Charlie Brown's company, potentially at great expense to itself. Is that behavior unethical?
Not that I mind being modded up, but I do not see the humor in the post--and it was MINE! Moderator, please let me in on my own joke.
I disagree; shareholders represent a third party that trusts the company's management to protect their investment. If I hand you walk up to you on the street and put $1000 in your hand, saying: "I entrust you with this money in the hope that you will do the best you can to ensure that I receive at least $1000 in return," and you accept, you have an ethical obligation to protect that money that must be considered alongside conflicting ethical imperatives.
Let's say that you return home and read that a non-profit organization that you support is in dire need of money; is it ethical to give part of the $1000 as a donation ("a corporation is not in the business of giving charitable contributions"--it is unethical to give somebody else's money to a charity that you support, even though giving charity is, itself, an ethical act). As indicated in this example, the fact that you are using other people's money as working capital modifies the normal "code" of ethics.
A public corporation, when established, is deliberately given the status of an individual separate from its founders. While the founders may have a controlling interest, they must recognize that they make up only a percentage of the entire organization and have an obligation to those who they presumably represent.
With unregulated content-neutral file sharing programs like Gnutella around, I fail to see the advantage of using an advertiser-supported service that bans copyrighted content. If one feels morally obliged not to download pirated material, he can still use Gnutella to find the legal files that he is looking for. Even for the service's target audience, there is no benefit to using this service and no cost-advantage that would justify paying a subscription fee.
I fully support the industry's attempt to use a distributed distribution mechanism for legal media, but I think that they need to add value to such a service if they want it to succeed. Value-added services like real-time voice chats with celebrities, access to movies and music before they officially debut, etc. that cannot be replicated by Napster/Gnutella are what is needed to drive such a service.
I remember a case from a while back where a reporter was actually jailed for obstruction of justice because he was protecting a confidential source. While this story is now making headlines and generating positive publicity for Penenburg, he is able to be principled. Let's see what happens when he is threatened with jail time, though.
I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether Slashdot should go to the same length to protect sources (presumably ACs) who indulge in criminal behavior. Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly.
After the recent court decision, which determined that spidering Ebay's website to populate a metasearch engine is illegal use of Ebay's system resources, couldn't the affected networks file the same charges against Qouva? Quova intends to profit from information that it gathers using techniques, which: cause unwanted logs to be appended to the logfile, ping (contact) the affected company's network, and cause incidental damages relating to responding to "false alarms."
<offtopic>It is odd that a company officer would so completely contradict the statement concerning the company's mission. If the company is causing all of these problems without even being certain of its own function, let alone business plan, then how the f*** were they able to get funded?</offtopic>
No, I meant that viruses would be designed to compromise an individual company's security and they would not have the expertise on hand to combat it. Securing a system against script kiddies is as easy as ensuring that you have all of the latest system patches installed, as their "rootkits" usually come out after the issue is reported, and have no major holes.
Securing your system against a coordinated attack means having *real humans* constantly monitor system usage to look for suspicious usage patterns. In addition, it should be ready to divert a team of developers from their core business to immediately respond to any potential threats. Merely securing the system after the fact (like filtering out VBS extensions *after* being hit by "ILOVEYOU," as so many sysadmins did), is not sufficient as vital information is vulnerable as soon as the system is penetrated, and is easily accessible if the crackers are prepared and know where to look.
Most organizations do not encrypt internal documents, regardless of their importance; those that do probably have many users with their encryption string the same as their network password! Without adequate ssafeguards protecting information from being compromised even if the cracker has root access, the possibility of espionage exists.
As you can see from the article, the crackers knew little about the underlying OS and the stolen subscriber list (this may be from another article) was the only important data that was compromised. The mentality seems to be that of the hunt--in all but one of the cases, the cracker only wanted to get root access to *a* system--they did not care about how that system was used. As a result, they could do nothing more than say "I got in" or destroy files (and especially sensitive files will be backed up). They do not take the time to study the machine they break into because they really do not care--their callous indifference prevents them from utilizing their access to steal proprietary information. In addition, they are motivated by boredom and a desire to prove themselves, not financial gain.
By far, the most debilitating aspect of the script kiddies is that they are unorganized and unfunded. It is the difference between an army and a group of thugs--as long as there is little collaboration (not that many of them possess significant knowledge or ability), then chaos reigns and isolated cases or damage are more common than coordinated assaults on vital systems. Right now, it is a game of craps--if they happen to hit an important system, it is not through any planning on their part. The danger comes when specific, critical systems are targetted.
Script Kiddies pose little threat because they are easily deterred. If the sysadmin installs all of the latest patches and is diligent about dealing with known issues, then the script kiddies "favorite utils" will not work. Since they have no need to crack *that particular system,* they will move on. It is just like when a common thief sees that a house is protected by a burglar alarm, he will just move on in favor of more vulnerable targets. In the case of script kiddies, they do not possess the knowledge to crack a well-protected system even if they tried, so the threat is further reduced.
In a worst case scenario, script kiddies manage to delete all files on the main file server. The organization may experience 1-2 days of downtime and a few $100,000s - $1,000,000s in lost productivity. Eventually, the system will be restored and the people will return to work. Now, imagine that there is a coordinated assault against *your* server. You are a publicly traded company that is scheduled to report its quarterly earnings in a week; suddenly, hackers enter your system and seem to just delete all of your files. Almost immediately, your shares lose 1/3 of their value as one of your largest institutional shareholders sells its entire holdings in "anticipation" of your earnings report. Executives lose lots of money and you may be subject to an SEC investigation and shareholder lawsuits alleging insider trading. Which is more of a threat to your organizations long-term stability?