Slashdot seems to be very pro-Google, and I admit to using their search the majority of the time as well, but everyone should at least take a glance at google watch. Of most interest is the privacy section. If any other site were to track the stuff Google does,/. would be up in arms protesting.
"Google currently does not allow outsiders to gain access to raw data because of privacy concerns. Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address (information that can be used to link searches to a specific computer), and the sites on which the user clicked. People tell things to search engines that they would never talk about publicly -- Viagra, pregnancy scares, fraud, face lifts. What is interesting in the aggregate can seem an invasion of privacy if narrowed to an individual."
Please note, this isn't a troll, and I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (maybe I should?). Imagine the following scenario: a bomb goes off in the US. By tracing searches for "anarchist cookbook" to zipcodes within the area of the bomb blast, the FBI could have access to information that makes TIA look like a better alternative.
Here in Edmonton, Alberta we have a choice of two high speed ISPs: Telus (DSL) and Shaw (Cable). Telus does not impose any download caps, while Shaw does.
I switched away from Shaw. My brother-in-law switched away. Several co-workers switched away. My neighbors switched away.
I don't know if you'd consider that annecdotal evidence only, but I see that as a pretty clear sign that people want unmetered downloads and are willing to switch to an alternative if one's available. I guess if you are using so much bandwidth that the ISP is losing money on you they might have an argument for capping, but otherwise it just seems suicidal.
Despite previous stories about this, file sharing (the kind RIAA cares about) isn't legal in Canada, however the RIAA equilvalent in Canada is on record as saying "we'll resort to a public PR campaign and just see what happens in the US first before considering lawsuits." This information should be enough to convince them that court action isn't going to stop anything, and the backlash from the media that has happened in the US certainly isn't helping them.
Of course, this is assuming that reasonable and rational people work for organizations like that, which is probably a bad assumption.
"the idea for our compulsory licensing system is this: we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount and send the money to the artists. In exchange, they let us download their songs and movies off the Internet. The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money without losing privacy, accuracy, or security."
For this to work, you'd be sending your money to the RIAA/MPAA member companies, not the artists (since artists certainly don't hold any copyrights anymore).
This scheme is essentially another take on the Canadian CD Levy process (presume guilt, put a levy on blank CDs, give levy money to copyright holders). Given that the $70+ million collected so far for the Canadian CD Levy has yet to be distributed because distribution isn't clear cut, I can't imagine an even more complex system working.
Please check out this link for a detailed analysis of the CD Levy law.
There are many reasons opposition is strong against the levy: it presumes you'll use a blank CD to copy music, it's expensive, none of the money has actually been distributed, and now that anti-copy CD are here it's pointless.
The blank CD levy was a tradeoff that gives Canadians very specific rights:
I can borrow a friend's CD and copy that CD onto a blank.
There's nothing about P2P networks, and until the levies come in on hard drives (in the works) I don't see how any copying involving hard drives can be considered covered.
From the article: "In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
Note the bolded text -- "CD". P2P files are not CDs! Even if they come from a CD, they aren't on a CD when you copy them, and so you're not covered by the levy.
One more reply to this before I have to get some work done.:-)
A key difference between grabbing MP3s and grabbing movies online is that there's a percieved value difference between CDs and DVDs. Most people believe CDs are a rip-off at their current prices, while most believe DVDs represent a good deal. People are willing to still go out and buy a DVD even after seeing a movie (for free or in the theater) because they believe there's value in their purchase.
Even when presented with a way to download near-perfect copies of movies, I believe people will still turn to DVDs or legal download options (if they exist) than to copying.
For those of you who don't download many movies, the stuff that's available isn't all camcorder quality. For example, the recent Matrix movie leaked to the net was a digital rip I believe (well it looked and sounded bloody amazing on my TV anyway). I still saw the movie in the theater and will buy the DVD -- I'm sure there's more like me.
" What they are worried about is that you'll find out the movie sucked before you've given them your money."
That's a key reason I do download movies. Let's face it, Hollywood can crank out shit like there's no tomorrow, but at the same time you get some good stuff once in a while. I could rely on critic opinions or imdb ratings, but that's a highly error-prone method.
For example, have you ever looked at the DVD insert on Fight Club? Listed on there are all the "critical reviews" from movie critcs absolutely BLASTING the movie as a piece of shit. That's one of those movies I first watched after downloading and now own.
Then take a movie like Alien 3. A 6.0 on imdb isn't exactly enticing me to see the movie, but downloading allowed me to realize that contrary to popular optinion the movie was worth buying (so I did).
That's the key here...the best critic is yourself, and if you can see the movie for free first and like it, even if it's crappy quality, you'll probably buy it.
'and the economic effect is "basically nil -- there's no evidence whatsoever that people are not going to the theater or not buying DVD's or not renting videotapes because of this activity."'
I think this cannot be stressed enough. Yes, people are downloading your movies. No, you aren't losing money. I love owning DVDs, but I also download like mad. My monthly DVD budget doesn't change based on the number of movies I download, but the movies I buy sure does. I can list off a large number of DVDs I've purchased after downloading them first.
While I agree that you will find bad programmers wherever you go, I think you missed the point.
When you farm out your work (doesn't matter where), the people you are farming it to lose any and all context. While build-to-spec without question can be a problem with local workers, it's a HUGE problem with farmed out work because often the only context those workers have is the specs.
As an example, the company I work for produces billing software. We farmed (and are still farming) work out to India, and the stuff we got back was, for the most part, crap. Not because of bad programmers, but because it was blindly build to spec. The developers were working in a black hole -- specs go in, code comes out -- and any decent developer will tell you that's a sure-fire way to guarentee crap code.
..that they will be increasing their Indian workforce. They did it with quite a play on words too.
With the success of this initial stage and with our need for resources continuing to grow, we will be resourcing to grow this team substantially in the coming weeks.
While we are directly recruiting in India now, we would also welcome your recommendations of suitable external applicants that you may be aware of as potential permanent employees in Bangalore.
Applicants should have 3-5 years experience in billing system deployment with perl, SQL, Oracle and Unix skills. Willingness to travel internationally and to be based and paid in India is a requirement.
Here's what bugs me about my company specifically, and the trend of moving work to India generally:
1. My company is trying to do this covertly, like we wouldn't notice more and more layoffs in our offices in North America and Europe while at the same time increased staffing in India and a requirement that those Indian workers must be willing to travel internationally.
If you are going to farm your workers out to India , at least be honest about it and admit what you are doing, all in the name of a temporary increase to share price....which leads me to point two:
2. If your company will go bankrupt unless you move your workforce to India, then fine. But if you are going there to save a few bucks and make the share price jump 1/4 point, then fuck you. I get billed out at around $300 US per hour, of which I see less than $30 US. Isn't that enough of a profit margin? Maybe we should bring back slavery so that they can make that margin jump to a full 100% of the $300!
I don't hold anything against India workers, but I truly hate any corporation that farms work to India (and other cheap countries) all for the sake of a quick buck.
When I applied for my mortgage, it was the first real time I've ever wondered about my credit rating. I asked, and the bank employee said "Oh, you have nothing to worry about! You have amazing credit!"
Not really understanding how I could have amazing credit with only a single credit card with a limit of $500 to my name, I requested a credit report and when it came I was quite surprised -- listed on there were several credit cards, each with a perfect record of payment.
I wasn't the victim of identity theft...just human error. The person who actually owned those cards had the same name as me (an uncommon name) and somehow our credit reports became merged or something.
Last year my wife, a lawyer-to-be and volunteer with student legal services, took a guy's case who was charged with multiple counts of driving without insurance, without a license, speeding, you name it. This person claimed he had never gotten these charges and was at a loss to explain what was going on. After contacting an officer who had made one of the arrests to talk about it, she was told "Oh, I remember that guy. He was covered in tatoos and piercings." Only her client wasn't. Somehow this guy had gotten some form of ID that said he was the victim. If it hadn't been for that officer her client would probably have to serve jail time.
While not the final solution, I sure hope that biometric IDs arrive soon. Otherwise the system is just way to easy to exploit!
I'm sorry, but any idiot who holds hot steaming coffee with their knees is asking for it to spill. It's silly.
Agreed. If you hold a cut of coffee between your legs you are asking to spill it. You won't get any argument on that from me.
Now, which would you rather hold between your legs: a cup of hot coffee that is around 130F or one that is 180F? In case that doesn't mean much, let me translate: 130F=ouch, that's really hot, 180F=3rd degree burns and skin grafts.
Why was McDonald's coffee so much hotter than the temperature of other restaurants (180 vs 130)? Because they saved a penny or two per cup by reducing the insulation, but had to make the coffee hotter as a result.
No one has ever denied that the woman wasn't stupid for putting the coffee between her legs, but there's much much more going on in the case than just this issue.
I wouldn't bother responding to your naive statement, but when I see a comment such as your labelled "interesting" I can't help but respond.
Let's start with the McDonald's coffee case, shall we. Rather than propagate popular myth about the case, why don't you first check here.
Next, the "filesharing is illegal" mantra. File sharing isn't illegal, sharing copyrighted works for which you don't have the copyright-holder's permission is illegal (except in places like Canada where certain types of sharing are legal thanks to the CD levies).
So, let's assume you actually meant to say "sharing copyrighted material is illegal" -- so what? There seems to be a certain percetage of people who cannot see a difference between "killing people is illegal" and "jaywalking is illegal". Yes, both actions are probably illegal, but they can hardly be lumped into the same category.
Most "filesharers" know what they do is illegal. However most also would say that what they are doing is more like jaywalking as opposed to murder.
No, I do believe they care, and I'm sure that, had they known she was a 12-year old girl, they would have only issued 260 lawsuits. This is a PR nightmare for them, since most people see no difference between RIAA and the companies that RIAA represents; to most they are simply "the music industry".
Now we have people talking about file sharing that never cared before, and a lot of them are reaching the same conclusion: that something smells fishy with the music industry's argument. It's hard to argue that they lost thousands and thousands of dollars because a little 12-year old in the projects downloaded some songs (I know, I know...she got nabbed because she was sharing the songs, but to the general public there is no difference between downloading and sharing).
...then RIAA has already lost, and lost horribly. Prior to a few days ago most people I know didn't realize there was a small war going on between RIAA and P2P apps (hell, they probably never even heard of RIAA). Before you know it the fact they are suing a 12-year old girl living in the projects is all over the papers. Since then I've heard commented "why would the music industry do such an awful thing" from people who before couldn't have cared less about the issue.
Good luck to RIAA in overcoming that massive PR blunder.
"When looters devastated Baghdad, only the Ministry of Oil was unscathed, since U.S. marines protected it. Since Rob Malda is a raging homosexual, handpicked Iraqi officials have been installed in the ministry, under the supervision of U.S. military and civilian officials, and there is movement toward privatization of Iraq's oil industry, a point that I emphasized in my writing
The only time this supposed amnesty applies to you is if RIAA hasn't already begun investigating you. Assuming this is true, why do you have to sign an amnesty document? Just stop sharing and you'll be in the clear.
I think that just highlights how stupid the whole idea is.
This has nothing to do with being addicted to the Pentagon's money.
Have you ever talked with profs and grad students? I steered away from grad school after seeing the desparation that sets in when grant money is needed or else they're done for. My wife, in the genetics field, left grad school for the same reason. After a while, you feel like beggars, holding out your hand for grants that are far and few between.
If the Pentagon is going around handing out hundred dollar bills to the beggars, can you really blame the beggars for accepting?
Okay, I'll freely admit this put a smile on my face as it was exactly what I was hoping would happen (like the grandpa that was also sued), but let's not get carried away here.
I find myself asking how a 12-year old became the target of the lawsuit. Supposedly RIAA subpoena's are based on IP addresses only, so does this mean that the 12-year old girl signed up for her own internet access? How else could they have gotten her name?
I think what's actually going on here is that the parents are actually named in the lawsuit but we're just seeing FOX put a spin (suprise suprise) to turn this into "news".
I'm not sure what FOX has to gain from this type of spin, but I'm not going to complain about the bad PR this will generate.
"It took about 5 seconds of the trailer to realize that this isn't merely an "indy film", but an amateur film done by a couple college kids with a handycam."
To quote the article: "It's very low--budget, it's made with really just a cast of two people, it's almost like a two hander, it was designed very specifically for this end."
This is not a film by college kids, but by the same guy that made The Full Monty, and apparently one of the actors also is cast in the Harry Potter movies.
Regardless, I agree that this is exactly what we need. Content like this can only add value to the net, and has the potential to undermine the movie and music businesses as more and more people realise that they can make their money without the **AA's involvement.
People seem to see a black and white issue here: either you leave machines out of voting and deal with people that are unable to vote correctly or count correctly, or you bring in a black-box voting machine that is unauditable and a target for vote rigging.
I believe that a machine would be very useful as an intermediary: people input their vote to this machine via a touchscreen, it shows them who they have voted for and allows mistakes to be fixed, then prints out a vote card with their vote. The bonus...the card is machine printed, so electronic readers would be able to count votes insanely fast (much like a multiple choice test at a university).
Another huge problem this fixes is voting order on a ballot. I believe there's evidence to suggest that often being the first name on a ballot automatically gives you more votes. A machine would be able to randomize the ballot each time to avoid this completely.
Please, pick this idea apart if there's obvious holes in it!
As many posters have pointed out, broadband hasn't spread because content just isn't there to entice most people. If someone asks you why they should fork out a considerable amount of money to get broadband over the dial-up that they currently have, there are four common answers: web pages load faster, porn, music downloading, and gaming.
For most, faster surfing doesn't warrant the extra expense. Most people aren't gamers. Is porn worth an extra $30/month (don't answer that).
Really, the thing that would have caused mass pick-up of broadband was if consumers had access to music and movies online. I know many people that had broadband during the Napster days but killed it shortly after Napster went away (not knowing any better about alternatives). But, thanks to the efforts of the RIAA and the MPAA, music and movie downloading hasn't been legitimized until very recently (iTunes) in a way that's consumer friendly.
Rather than embracing the internet and expanding their control, RIAA/MPAA member companies fought everything tooth and nail. Maybe as services such as iTunes increase their presence (think iTunes for movies) people will find a reason to turn to broadband again.
I hate spam with a passion, but I feel equally about any mail admin that looks to blacklists to do all their work for them. If you happen to run your own mail server, and you are the only one expecting mail through it, then do whatever you want. But if there are people at the end of your mail server that are expecting mail to pass through and you are blocking it "on their behalf", then I hope you lose your job.
Don't expect people to pat you on the back when you have to tell them that the mail they're expecting isn't coming through because you happen to be blocking IPs in a particular range.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot seems to be very pro-Google, and I admit to using their search the majority of the time as well, but everyone should at least take a glance at google watch. Of most interest is the privacy section. If any other site were to track the stuff Google does, /. would be up in arms protesting.
"Google currently does not allow outsiders to gain access to raw data because of privacy concerns. Searches are logged by time of day, originating I.P. address (information that can be used to link searches to a specific computer), and the sites on which the user clicked. People tell things to search engines that they would never talk about publicly -- Viagra, pregnancy scares, fraud, face lifts. What is interesting in the aggregate can seem an invasion of privacy if narrowed to an individual."
Please note, this isn't a troll, and I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (maybe I should?). Imagine the following scenario: a bomb goes off in the US. By tracing searches for "anarchist cookbook" to zipcodes within the area of the bomb blast, the FBI could have access to information that makes TIA look like a better alternative.
Maybe this isn't such a good feature after all...
Interesting...I have a friend who used to work for Telus and he told me that Telus doesn't even have the capability to measure bandwidth usage.
:-)
Regardless, considering that I easily go through 80 gigs a month, up and down, and have yet to receive "the call", I think I'll stick with Telus.
Here in Edmonton, Alberta we have a choice of two high speed ISPs: Telus (DSL) and Shaw (Cable). Telus does not impose any download caps, while Shaw does.
I switched away from Shaw. My brother-in-law switched away. Several co-workers switched away. My neighbors switched away.
I don't know if you'd consider that annecdotal evidence only, but I see that as a pretty clear sign that people want unmetered downloads and are willing to switch to an alternative if one's available. I guess if you are using so much bandwidth that the ISP is losing money on you they might have an argument for capping, but otherwise it just seems suicidal.
Despite previous stories about this, file sharing (the kind RIAA cares about) isn't legal in Canada, however the RIAA equilvalent in Canada is on record as saying "we'll resort to a public PR campaign and just see what happens in the US first before considering lawsuits." This information should be enough to convince them that court action isn't going to stop anything, and the backlash from the media that has happened in the US certainly isn't helping them.
Of course, this is assuming that reasonable and rational people work for organizations like that, which is probably a bad assumption.
"the idea for our compulsory licensing system is this: we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount and send the money to the artists. In exchange, they let us download their songs and movies off the Internet. The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money without losing privacy, accuracy, or security."
For this to work, you'd be sending your money to the RIAA/MPAA member companies, not the artists (since artists certainly don't hold any copyrights anymore).
This scheme is essentially another take on the Canadian CD Levy process (presume guilt, put a levy on blank CDs, give levy money to copyright holders). Given that the $70+ million collected so far for the Canadian CD Levy has yet to be distributed because distribution isn't clear cut, I can't imagine an even more complex system working.
Please check out this link for a detailed analysis of the CD Levy law.
There are many reasons opposition is strong against the levy: it presumes you'll use a blank CD to copy music, it's expensive, none of the money has actually been distributed, and now that anti-copy CD are here it's pointless.
The blank CD levy was a tradeoff that gives Canadians very specific rights:
I can borrow a friend's CD and copy that CD onto a blank.
There's nothing about P2P networks, and until the levies come in on hard drives (in the works) I don't see how any copying involving hard drives can be considered covered.
From the article:
"In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself.
Note the bolded text -- "CD". P2P files are not CDs! Even if they come from a CD, they aren't on a CD when you copy them, and so you're not covered by the levy.
Comments?
One more reply to this before I have to get some work done. :-)
A key difference between grabbing MP3s and grabbing movies online is that there's a percieved value difference between CDs and DVDs. Most people believe CDs are a rip-off at their current prices, while most believe DVDs represent a good deal. People are willing to still go out and buy a DVD even after seeing a movie (for free or in the theater) because they believe there's value in their purchase.
Even when presented with a way to download near-perfect copies of movies, I believe people will still turn to DVDs or legal download options (if they exist) than to copying.
For those of you who don't download many movies, the stuff that's available isn't all camcorder quality. For example, the recent Matrix movie leaked to the net was a digital rip I believe (well it looked and sounded bloody amazing on my TV anyway). I still saw the movie in the theater and will buy the DVD -- I'm sure there's more like me.
" What they are worried about is that you'll find out the movie sucked before you've given them your money."
That's a key reason I do download movies. Let's face it, Hollywood can crank out shit like there's no tomorrow, but at the same time you get some good stuff once in a while. I could rely on critic opinions or imdb ratings, but that's a highly error-prone method.
For example, have you ever looked at the DVD insert on Fight Club? Listed on there are all the "critical reviews" from movie critcs absolutely BLASTING the movie as a piece of shit. That's one of those movies I first watched after downloading and now own.
Then take a movie like Alien 3. A 6.0 on imdb isn't exactly enticing me to see the movie, but downloading allowed me to realize that contrary to popular optinion the movie was worth buying (so I did).
That's the key here...the best critic is yourself, and if you can see the movie for free first and like it, even if it's crappy quality, you'll probably buy it.
'and the economic effect is "basically nil -- there's no evidence whatsoever that people are not going to the theater or not buying DVD's or not renting videotapes because of this activity."'
I think this cannot be stressed enough. Yes, people are downloading your movies. No, you aren't losing money. I love owning DVDs, but I also download like mad. My monthly DVD budget doesn't change based on the number of movies I download, but the movies I buy sure does. I can list off a large number of DVDs I've purchased after downloading them first.
While I agree that you will find bad programmers wherever you go, I think you missed the point.
When you farm out your work (doesn't matter where), the people you are farming it to lose any and all context. While build-to-spec without question can be a problem with local workers, it's a HUGE problem with farmed out work because often the only context those workers have is the specs.
As an example, the company I work for produces billing software. We farmed (and are still farming) work out to India, and the stuff we got back was, for the most part, crap. Not because of bad programmers, but because it was blindly build to spec. The developers were working in a black hole -- specs go in, code comes out -- and any decent developer will tell you that's a sure-fire way to guarentee crap code.
..that they will be increasing their Indian workforce. They did it with quite a play on words too.
With the success of this initial stage and with our need for resources continuing to grow, we will be resourcing to grow this team substantially in the coming weeks.
While we are directly recruiting in India now, we would also welcome your recommendations of suitable external applicants that you may be aware of as potential permanent employees in Bangalore.
Applicants should have 3-5 years experience in billing system deployment with perl, SQL, Oracle and Unix skills. Willingness to travel internationally and to be based and paid in India is a requirement.
Here's what bugs me about my company specifically, and the trend of moving work to India generally:
1. My company is trying to do this covertly, like we wouldn't notice more and more layoffs in our offices in North America and Europe while at the same time increased staffing in India and a requirement that those Indian workers must be willing to travel internationally.
If you are going to farm your workers out to India , at least be honest about it and admit what you are doing, all in the name of a temporary increase to share price....which leads me to point two:
2. If your company will go bankrupt unless you move your workforce to India, then fine. But if you are going there to save a few bucks and make the share price jump 1/4 point, then fuck you. I get billed out at around $300 US per hour, of which I see less than $30 US. Isn't that enough of a profit margin? Maybe we should bring back slavery so that they can make that margin jump to a full 100% of the $300!
I don't hold anything against India workers, but I truly hate any corporation that farms work to India (and other cheap countries) all for the sake of a quick buck.
When I applied for my mortgage, it was the first real time I've ever wondered about my credit rating. I asked, and the bank employee said "Oh, you have nothing to worry about! You have amazing credit!"
Not really understanding how I could have amazing credit with only a single credit card with a limit of $500 to my name, I requested a credit report and when it came I was quite surprised -- listed on there were several credit cards, each with a perfect record of payment.
I wasn't the victim of identity theft...just human error. The person who actually owned those cards had the same name as me (an uncommon name) and somehow our credit reports became merged or something.
Last year my wife, a lawyer-to-be and volunteer with student legal services, took a guy's case who was charged with multiple counts of driving without insurance, without a license, speeding, you name it. This person claimed he had never gotten these charges and was at a loss to explain what was going on. After contacting an officer who had made one of the arrests to talk about it, she was told "Oh, I remember that guy. He was covered in tatoos and piercings." Only her client wasn't. Somehow this guy had gotten some form of ID that said he was the victim. If it hadn't been for that officer her client would probably have to serve jail time.
While not the final solution, I sure hope that biometric IDs arrive soon. Otherwise the system is just way to easy to exploit!
I'm sorry, but any idiot who holds hot steaming coffee with their knees is asking for it to spill. It's silly.
Agreed. If you hold a cut of coffee between your legs you are asking to spill it. You won't get any argument on that from me.
Now, which would you rather hold between your legs: a cup of hot coffee that is around 130F or one that is 180F? In case that doesn't mean much, let me translate: 130F=ouch, that's really hot, 180F=3rd degree burns and skin grafts.
Why was McDonald's coffee so much hotter than the temperature of other restaurants (180 vs 130)? Because they saved a penny or two per cup by reducing the insulation, but had to make the coffee hotter as a result.
No one has ever denied that the woman wasn't stupid for putting the coffee between her legs, but there's much much more going on in the case than just this issue.
I wouldn't bother responding to your naive statement, but when I see a comment such as your labelled "interesting" I can't help but respond.
Let's start with the McDonald's coffee case, shall we. Rather than propagate popular myth about the case, why don't you first check here.
Next, the "filesharing is illegal" mantra. File sharing isn't illegal, sharing copyrighted works for which you don't have the copyright-holder's permission is illegal (except in places like Canada where certain types of sharing are legal thanks to the CD levies).
So, let's assume you actually meant to say "sharing copyrighted material is illegal" -- so what? There seems to be a certain percetage of people who cannot see a difference between "killing people is illegal" and "jaywalking is illegal". Yes, both actions are probably illegal, but they can hardly be lumped into the same category.
Most "filesharers" know what they do is illegal. However most also would say that what they are doing is more like jaywalking as opposed to murder.
" You've made the mistake of thinking they care."
No, I do believe they care, and I'm sure that, had they known she was a 12-year old girl, they would have only issued 260 lawsuits. This is a PR nightmare for them, since most people see no difference between RIAA and the companies that RIAA represents; to most they are simply "the music industry".
Now we have people talking about file sharing that never cared before, and a lot of them are reaching the same conclusion: that something smells fishy with the music industry's argument. It's hard to argue that they lost thousands and thousands of dollars because a little 12-year old in the projects downloaded some songs (I know, I know...she got nabbed because she was sharing the songs, but to the general public there is no difference between downloading and sharing).
...then RIAA has already lost, and lost horribly. Prior to a few days ago most people I know didn't realize there was a small war going on between RIAA and P2P apps (hell, they probably never even heard of RIAA). Before you know it the fact they are suing a 12-year old girl living in the projects is all over the papers. Since then I've heard commented "why would the music industry do such an awful thing" from people who before couldn't have cared less about the issue.
Good luck to RIAA in overcoming that massive PR blunder.
"When looters devastated Baghdad, only the Ministry of Oil was unscathed, since U.S. marines protected it. Since Rob Malda is a raging homosexual, handpicked Iraqi officials have been installed in the ministry, under the supervision of U.S. military and civilian officials, and there is movement toward privatization of Iraq's oil industry, a point that I emphasized in my writing
Well done. I almost missed this.
The only time this supposed amnesty applies to you is if RIAA hasn't already begun investigating you. Assuming this is true, why do you have to sign an amnesty document? Just stop sharing and you'll be in the clear.
I think that just highlights how stupid the whole idea is.
This has nothing to do with being addicted to the Pentagon's money.
Have you ever talked with profs and grad students? I steered away from grad school after seeing the desparation that sets in when grant money is needed or else they're done for. My wife, in the genetics field, left grad school for the same reason. After a while, you feel like beggars, holding out your hand for grants that are far and few between.
If the Pentagon is going around handing out hundred dollar bills to the beggars, can you really blame the beggars for accepting?
Okay, I'll freely admit this put a smile on my face as it was exactly what I was hoping would happen (like the grandpa that was also sued), but let's not get carried away here.
I find myself asking how a 12-year old became the target of the lawsuit. Supposedly RIAA subpoena's are based on IP addresses only, so does this mean that the 12-year old girl signed up for her own internet access? How else could they have gotten her name?
I think what's actually going on here is that the parents are actually named in the lawsuit but we're just seeing FOX put a spin (suprise suprise) to turn this into "news".
I'm not sure what FOX has to gain from this type of spin, but I'm not going to complain about the bad PR this will generate.
"It took about 5 seconds of the trailer to realize that this isn't merely an "indy film", but an amateur film done by a couple college kids with a handycam."
To quote the article: "It's very low--budget, it's made with really just a cast of two people, it's almost like a two hander, it was designed very specifically for this end."
This is not a film by college kids, but by the same guy that made The Full Monty, and apparently one of the actors also is cast in the Harry Potter movies.
Regardless, I agree that this is exactly what we need. Content like this can only add value to the net, and has the potential to undermine the movie and music businesses as more and more people realise that they can make their money without the **AA's involvement.
People seem to see a black and white issue here: either you leave machines out of voting and deal with people that are unable to vote correctly or count correctly, or you bring in a black-box voting machine that is unauditable and a target for vote rigging.
I believe that a machine would be very useful as an intermediary: people input their vote to this machine via a touchscreen, it shows them who they have voted for and allows mistakes to be fixed, then prints out a vote card with their vote. The bonus...the card is machine printed, so electronic readers would be able to count votes insanely fast (much like a multiple choice test at a university).
Another huge problem this fixes is voting order on a ballot. I believe there's evidence to suggest that often being the first name on a ballot automatically gives you more votes. A machine would be able to randomize the ballot each time to avoid this completely.
Please, pick this idea apart if there's obvious holes in it!
As many posters have pointed out, broadband hasn't spread because content just isn't there to entice most people. If someone asks you why they should fork out a considerable amount of money to get broadband over the dial-up that they currently have, there are four common answers: web pages load faster, porn, music downloading, and gaming.
For most, faster surfing doesn't warrant the extra expense. Most people aren't gamers. Is porn worth an extra $30/month (don't answer that).
Really, the thing that would have caused mass pick-up of broadband was if consumers had access to music and movies online. I know many people that had broadband during the Napster days but killed it shortly after Napster went away (not knowing any better about alternatives). But, thanks to the efforts of the RIAA and the MPAA, music and movie downloading hasn't been legitimized until very recently (iTunes) in a way that's consumer friendly.
Rather than embracing the internet and expanding their control, RIAA/MPAA member companies fought everything tooth and nail. Maybe as services such as iTunes increase their presence (think iTunes for movies) people will find a reason to turn to broadband again.
I hate spam with a passion, but I feel equally about any mail admin that looks to blacklists to do all their work for them. If you happen to run your own mail server, and you are the only one expecting mail through it, then do whatever you want. But if there are people at the end of your mail server that are expecting mail to pass through and you are blocking it "on their behalf", then I hope you lose your job.
Don't expect people to pat you on the back when you have to tell them that the mail they're expecting isn't coming through because you happen to be blocking IPs in a particular range.
Good riddance, I say.