I think it depends on what you mean by "general business application framework."
For instance, I've written a web content-management and application development API, and released (sorta) the API under the Library GPL agreement.
If I understand what I've done correctly -- and I think I do - - anyone can download my API, link to it, and build whatever the hell they want to on top of it, and distribute that application as they see fit, with our without their application's source code, for profit or not. They *must* redistribute *MY* api, however, with the source code, license notification, blah blah blah blah.
As long as they do *not* add or alter the code to the API, and *only* build on top of it, that's all they have to do. However, if they make changes or additions to the API code itself for whatever reason, they *must* distribute the source code for that change to the API. (In which case, it's probably in their best interest to *not* make proprietarily beneficial changes to the API.)
However, what's to stop them from creating a call _similar_ to those I've got in my API, but saying "uh-uh. this isn't a part of your API, but is instead a similar, but PROPRIETARY API that just happens to play nice-nice with your own API."? The answer: probably nothing. Yeah, it's a dick move, but what corporation isn't built on a giant pile of dick moves upon dick moves upon dick moves? My only hope is that someone wouldn't do this, but there's generally nothing you could do to stop them if they wanted to take that wise-assed approach, except maybe tell them to get bent because you're no longer supporting them. (Or, make your own dick move and upgrade the API with lots of neat bells and whistles, but release that version with a very hefty enterprise license fee. *evil grin*)
Without knowing your specifics, I can only assume that your situation is similar to mine. I'd say that if you're asked to change the framework itself, that it's a change that should be open-sourced, but if it's a change to the application built on top of the framework, it's probably their's to do with as they please.
Given that, as many people here have already pointed out, Microsoft is readying/improving its own search offering, I think it's pretty plain that this is just an attempt by Slate/MSN/Microsoft to smear Google, using journalism or op/ed to do so.
Google isn't biased, as the article tries to make the case, the _web_ is biased, toward the technical (and unfortunately, towards blogs.) So those, will, of course, show up first. People don't publish complete books online, but they publish papers and articles by the droves. So, of course you're going to be pointed to that stuff first.
And frankly, anyone who types in "apple" into a search engine should know that they're going to get MANY very BROAD results. You need to be specific in your search. The more specific you are, the better results you're going to get.
Someone with some money and a lawyer to burn, PLEASE sue SCO to force the disclosure of the "evidence" they claim to have.
We can continue sit here and fester in our own self-confidence, but until we know for sure what's up, we're sitting ducks. Better to know NOW what the extent of the problem is, and fix the damn thing.
"They're toys for two-year olds, and they're called Floatees, and they're meant to go into the bathtub with the kids," recounts Ebbesmeyer. "Each package has a green frog and a blue turtle and a yellow duck and a red beaver."
Actually, people with clues *do* enter these competitions. I've been to one world final (as a team-affiliated tourist, really, but still. I was there for free, basically. While everyone else was keeping the cars running, I was in downtown Nashville, TN drinking and listening to better music than 50hz tones.:) ) There were at least 2 teams from technical/engineering schools there, and as I recall, they did pretty well, but lost out to the teams with money -- it really does come down to brute force, mostly. You pack the most batteries and the most amps and the most speakers into the smallest amount of space that you can, and seal it up *nice* and tight, and hope for the best.
It's a lot of fun, though. A good excuse to spend late nights drinking in the garage and cutting apart a $20K or better van with a sawz-all.
(I figured there'd be one... (little spoiler here...) If you sit thru the credits and run the whooooooole way down the beach, you find the girl. They just HAD to make another one.)
Ico is one of the best games few people played. Not only does it look good, the puzzles are challenging and the control is really intuitive and slick, but you *do* get attached to the characters in a hurry. If you can find this on the shelf somewhere, BUY IT AND PLAY IT.
First off, most open-source creators do NOT live in their parents' basements. Most have good jobs or at least good skills. Most are own their own, have lives and/or families. Most are just doing what they do because they enjoy it. Your stereotypical generalization of them does little to further any debate here, nor does it paint your comments in a decent light.
And you'll find from most of my other comments that I don't fit your definition of the typical Slashdot-worlder (if there is such a thing.) I pay for music, I pay for games. I have strong opinions about intellectual property, yes, but they would probably be closer to yours than to what you believe everyone elses is. I believe firmly in making money, but I believe in doing so based on your abilities, and not by lobbing cease-and-desist grenades at those who 1) haven't done anything wrong (STUPID maybe, more on that in a minute) and 2) can't afford to fight you.
I believe that Blizzard is a lot of talented people, and they make fine products, but, frankly, the way they treat their customers and supporters needs a LOT of work. Maybe a handful of people there are calling the shots, formulating the tactics. Their tactics ARE evil. So, Blizzard as a whole is probably evil the way the Germans where (OH MY GOD HE DIDN'T JUST BRING NAZI GERMANY INTO THIS!!! WOE TO ALL!!! Bite me, it's a good example of how *most* companies work. Most do a lot of things that their average employee would never stand for if it was being done to them, but for some reason, they show up for work every day.) in that mostly, their nice, talented people, they just take their marching orders from an evil few.
It's one thing to protect your IP, it's another to go after hobbyists who did *not* infringe on your IP, who played by the rules, reverse-engineered (LEGAL!) the bnetd protocols with the help of packet sniffers -- NO original code -- and disingenuously accuse them of circumventing your copy protection in order to shut them the hell down.
FreeCraft is a slightly different story. Granted, FreeCraft's maker(s) could have been smarter, and 1) called the game something else and 2) not used graphics that look an awful lot like those from WarCraft. Hell, I'd almost recommend to them if they're out there that they change the name, get other graphics, change the gameplay enough to get Blizzard off their backs, and keep going with their work.
As for Blizzard, you make a damn good product -- accept that, and use your resources to sell your product instead of writing cease-and-desist letters. Learn something from the rest of the gaming industry that lets players mod and extend their games, often to the increased success and sales of the original product. And most importantly, stop treating your *supporters* as the enemy, because at some point in time, your enemy *will* wise up and stopping buying your products.
Because, well, if you're not downloading it from a) the copyright holder or b) an entity with permission from the copyright holder to distribute their property online, you're, well, stealing it. Sorry, no grey area there, as much as people like to try to make them.
Choose any rationalization you want -- maybe you're just trying before you buy ( do that with a piece of steak in a grocery store. ) or maybe you think you're sticking it to the Big Media Companies (who are just, in turn going to stick it to me, the guy that still BUYS his cd's. Or the artists, who already don't see enough for what their talents are) or maybe you think that well, since I already own it or owned it at some point in time, it's okay for me to download it. (It isn't.) -- You're just lying to yourself.
I'm _not_ at all for the sheer amount of piracy that goes on. I have close to 600 albums here on my PC, but I paid for them all -- and spent the better part of 4 days ripping them all (caution: the Surgeon General has declared that sitting in front of a PC and burning CDs for 14 hours a day for four days straight is a good way to throw a blood clot.) into MP3s so I can carry them with me much more easily on my nifty new Archos mp3 jukebox. I would _pay_ to download some songs online. I can't wait until Apples' service opens up on the Mac, to try it out. (Mind you, I hope there's a way to get a refund for stuff that isn't even worth a dollar.) I don't have any pirated movies. The few games I play - yup, all paid for.
I'm not for piracy, but I'm also not for Media and Software companies thinking they can wield copyright "law" like a club -- for example, I will *not* buy another Blizzard Game for what they did to the bnetd project. Which is a shame, because I really liked the *Crafts, and Diabos. I would like to play the Ghost console game if it ever comes out, but I won't. I think that copyright terms should be short, and think that there should be some sort of incentive for those who choose to release information into the public domain sooner rather than later. (You can bet that if Disney could write off the value of the early Mickey Mouse stuff as a charitable donation, that shit wouldna been in the public domain YEARS ago.) I think that patent process should be smarter. I don't think that you should be able to patent a "for" loop, (and I'm quite surprised nobody's tried to, yet.) or a business process. (Although I wish I'd been around early enough to patent "Provision of goods or services in exchange for currency," because I'd be too rich to fucking care about any of this. (that's a joke, people.) )
And I certainly don't think that anyone that holds a patent, trademark, or copyright deserves to have his property damaged by remote control because someone half a world away things joe citizen has a song file that might not have been paid for. We have due process of law here, more or less, the last time I checked. If a company wants to go after someone, they can use the courts like everyone else.
Anyhoo, yeah, there's a bit of a tangent for ya. The meat of it is: I call them thieves because they're stealing. Period.
If you're not, that's perfectly understandable and certainly your right. But at the very least, send letters to your representatives and other influential State and Federal representatiives. Get some pressure on these folks, and keep it there.
And, as promised... another note. This one sent to my state Senators, the majority Leader, several key Senate Committee leaders, the President and Vice President, and going out soon to influential members of the House. Feel free to send quit the Republican party along with me, and use my letters as you see fit -- I won't try to destroy your computer, I promise.;)
Dear Influential Member of the Republican Party,
It is with great disappointment today that I write to you to say my farewell to the Republican Party, and to tell you that you have Senator Hatch to thank for it.
It was reported today that Senator Hatch strongly advocated giving large companies free reign to destroy the private property of U.S. citizens they suspect of infringing on their copyrights -- without and hint of due process, or any legal process for that matter.
How very irresponsible. How very disgusting. How VERY un-American.
I very much agree that the en masse downloading of music and movies is theivery. However, day by day, the Founders' concept of copyright is being eroded, as materials that should have entered into the public domain as intended, are being horded by large corporations. Laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act are being used by copyright holders as a weapon to squelch free academic and political speech, and preventing consumers from making perfectly legal, Fair Use copies and excerpts of copyrighted materials. And now, the Senator from Utah wants to teach "a few hundred thousand" of us a cruel cruel lesson. Well, isn't that nice. Never mind all the perfectly good rights of perfectly decent citizens that would be basically trampled to make that happen.
I'm sorry. I can't support even the SUGGESTION of a system like that. And I can't support the person that would support that, or the party that would call him a member.
So, I'm leaving. I will not vote Republican on the local, state or federal level. And I will encourage as many people as I can to do the same.
Regretfully and Sincerely, Farewell.
Ed R. Zahurak
--- Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much as even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Actually, I'm hoping the Republican Party leadership reads Slashdot.;)
Nah, I'll send out some more letters soon. And I do, seriously encourage all of you to do the same. The technically-inclined average joe needs an equivalent of the NRA. A single-issue, extremely focused block of voters who can tell these guys, "we don't give a fuck what you think about abortion, or SUV's, or welfare, vote OUR way on technology, copyright and intellectual property, or we don't vote YOUR way."
(My apologies to Andrew Vachss for paraphrasing his philosophy here, but he's right.)
Do NOT support candidates or political parties that even THINK this stuff.
I, for one, just quit the Republican Party, and sent the good Senator a nice message telling him why. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to do the same. Here's a nice little template to follow:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
I just use any piece of 8.5 x 11 paper I find to make a sleeve:
1. Take the piece of paper, and holding it portrait-wise, fold the bottom up to about an inch down the page (try this for a while with a CD in it, and you'll see how it works.)
2. fold that top inch down into a flap.
3. Open it up, and fold in about 1.5 inches on each side. (Again, use the CD in it, and you'll see how I mean.)
4. Toss CDs into the inside flaps, fold it up, and fold the top flap over. Presto! Instant and compant CD sleeve.
and includes this choice quotation: "..a German fan was outraged that the cockpit dimensions of an X-wing star fighter varied from those in the movies. Blackman looked into it and found that the game's version was indeed off -- by 6 centimeters."
As is oft heard on The Bob and Tom Show, Bob (Bobcat) Goldthwait said it best about rabid Star Wars fans:
"Have any of you nerds ever seen a vagina?! Because if you had, you'd throw that Stormtrooper cookie jar right out the window!!!"
No, what I'm saying is akin to saying it should be illegal to sneak into someone's house (by ANY means), open their medicine cabinet (by ANY means), and replace their heart medication (by ANY means) with a different medication (by ANY means) because _you_ think that's what's best for them (by ANY means).
That's what I'm saying.
And, guess what.... It IS illegal to do just that, be we talking about medication OR computer systems.
These folks found a way (*cough* exploit!) to get arbitrary code (*cough* exploit!) onto a user's PC without their knowledge (*cough* exploit!), and execute it (*cough* exploit!) because _they_ thought it was best for that user's PC. (By ANY means.) But it was, is, and ever shall be NOT UP TO THEM TO MAKE THAT CALL.
Had it been a corportation, had it been the government, had it been Microsoft, you'd all be screaming bloody murder. You *should* be screaming bloody murder _now_. RIAA doesn't know what's best for you. Microsoft doesn't know what's best for you. The government doesn't know what's best for you. Certainly, a group of IRC white-hats don't know what's best for you either.
All they're doing is putting a file on a webpage. It's not their fault that the infected machines run whatever is on that page.
Generally, have illegaly used someone else's computer, you have to have defeated some sort of access control mechanism. At least that's how it is in NYS.
Except that the "access control mechanism" is already broken. The [illegal] virus has already set up shop on that PC. The "fix" merely exploits the behavior of the virus to get a file onto you PC.
Put another way: Just because you didn't create the *original* hole, doesn't give you *any* right to crawl into it on your own.
Put another way: If your software ends up on my machine, ends up *running* on my machine, and I didn't agree to have it there, or run it, you're still in the wrong, no matter your intentions.
So, for the sake of my argument, and because it's what the fix really is, I'm going to call it was it is: an EXPLOIT.
Those infected with the virus are pretty fortunate that the folks who posted the exploit to the Geocities site were well-intentioned folks, instead of someone with more destruction in mind.
Had a black-hat type gotten to the Geocities page first and posted an even _more_ malicious exploit, I have a feeling the opinions here would be very different. If it Were RIAA or the MPAA?!? Look out, man! The bitching and moaning would never cease.
But, it's the whole road to hell/good intentions pavement thing. Eh.
I *like* it, but my computer room is about 2 degrees away from being a firetrap as it is.
I wonder if the folks at Google know about these guys. They'd probably freakin' *love* 'em, given the stories I've heard about their velcroed-together servers.
There a UK company that ships a server encased in real used pizza boxes, too.
The Gruv-X works pretty well. It's tiny, about the size of a half-dollar, and has a range of about 10-20 feet, The sound quality is good, maybe not stellar, but good enough for driving around in a car with a 30+ year old tuner and *mono* speakers. : )
Don't knock some of the Circuit City installers. Okay, well, any store but those in the Boston Area.:) My brother does installs at a CC up that way. He's built cars that have competed and placed very well in the SPL World Finals. And he's the best, too, when it comes to building quality-sounding and -looking installs, not just loud ones.
Every so often, one of those "kids" knows his shit.
You don't always have to look to an "mp3 ready" head unit.
I kinda just went through this. I have two cars -- one is a 1999 Grand Am, and the other a stock 1969 Cadillac convertible. For a rather looong road trip I was taking, I recently purchased an Archos 20GB MP3 Jukebox. It has a few quirks, but it's a nice unit.
For the Cadillac, I bought Cendyne's Gruv-X wireless FM transmitter. The Caddy's still got the stock radio, and I do *not* want to rip it out. The Gruv-X was the perfect way to go. It was about $25 (Slightly higher at ThinkGeek.com.), runs off of one AAA battery for about 8 hours. Works well. I can tune it to any frequency, and play my tunes.
For the Grand Am, I kinda lucked out. I dropped a pretty nice stereo system when I bought it, including an in-dash EQ that has *two* sets of stereo RCA inputs. (I wish I could remember the make/model, but I don't, and it's raining, so I'm not running out to the car.:P ) So, I just popped the face off the center of the dash, popped the EQ, plugged the cord in and snaked the other end down to the lower storage compartment, and ta-da, I have a fixed input for the player in the Grand Am.
And, of course, the optional accessories, like a portable power invertor for the car, so that I can recharge the player on those loooooooooong road trips, like this last one. All in all, not a bad set-up.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it depends on what you mean by "general business application framework."
For instance, I've written a web content-management and application development API, and released (sorta) the API under the Library GPL agreement.
If I understand what I've done correctly -- and I think I do - - anyone can download my API, link to it, and build whatever the hell they want to on top of it, and distribute that application as they see fit, with our without their application's source code, for profit or not. They *must* redistribute *MY* api, however, with the source code, license notification, blah blah blah blah.
As long as they do *not* add or alter the code to the API, and *only* build on top of it, that's all they have to do. However, if they make changes or additions to the API code itself for whatever reason, they *must* distribute the source code for that change to the API. (In which case, it's probably in their best interest to *not* make proprietarily beneficial changes to the API.)
However, what's to stop them from creating a call _similar_ to those I've got in my API, but saying "uh-uh. this isn't a part of your API, but is instead a similar, but PROPRIETARY API that just happens to play nice-nice with your own API."? The answer: probably nothing. Yeah, it's a dick move, but what corporation isn't built on a giant pile of dick moves upon dick moves upon dick moves? My only hope is that someone wouldn't do this, but there's generally nothing you could do to stop them if they wanted to take that wise-assed approach, except maybe tell them to get bent because you're no longer supporting them. (Or, make your own dick move and upgrade the API with lots of neat bells and whistles, but release that version with a very hefty enterprise license fee. *evil grin*)
Without knowing your specifics, I can only assume that your situation is similar to mine. I'd say that if you're asked to change the framework itself, that it's a change that should be open-sourced, but if it's a change to the application built on top of the framework, it's probably their's to do with as they please.
Plain and simple FUD.
Given that, as many people here have already pointed out, Microsoft is readying/improving its own search offering, I think it's pretty plain that this is just an attempt by Slate/MSN/Microsoft to smear Google, using journalism or op/ed to do so.
Google isn't biased, as the article tries to make the case, the _web_ is biased, toward the technical (and unfortunately, towards blogs.) So those, will, of course, show up first. People don't publish complete books online, but they publish papers and articles by the droves. So, of course you're going to be pointed to that stuff first.
And frankly, anyone who types in "apple" into a search engine should know that they're going to get MANY very BROAD results. You need to be specific in your search. The more specific you are, the better results you're going to get.
Someone with some money and a lawyer to burn, PLEASE sue SCO to force the disclosure of the "evidence" they claim to have.
We can continue sit here and fester in our own self-confidence, but until we know for sure what's up, we're sitting ducks. Better to know NOW what the extent of the problem is, and fix the damn thing.
"They're toys for two-year olds, and they're called Floatees, and they're meant to go into the bathtub with the kids," recounts Ebbesmeyer. "Each package has a green frog and a blue turtle and a yellow duck and a red beaver."
... huh huh. "Red Beaver." eh heh heh.
Actually, people with clues *do* enter these competitions. I've been to one world final (as a team-affiliated tourist, really, but still. I was there for free, basically. While everyone else was keeping the cars running, I was in downtown Nashville, TN drinking and listening to better music than 50hz tones. :) ) There were at least 2 teams from technical/engineering schools there, and as I recall, they did pretty well, but lost out to the teams with money -- it really does come down to brute force, mostly. You pack the most batteries and the most amps and the most speakers into the smallest amount of space that you can, and seal it up *nice* and tight, and hope for the best.
It's a lot of fun, though. A good excuse to spend late nights drinking in the garage and cutting apart a $20K or better van with a sawz-all.
... or you might get a cease-and-desist in the mail.
I soooo can't wait for an Ico sequel!
(I figured there'd be one... (little spoiler here...) If you sit thru the credits and run the whooooooole way down the beach, you find the girl. They just HAD to make another one.)
Ico is one of the best games few people played. Not only does it look good, the puzzles are challenging and the control is really intuitive and slick, but you *do* get attached to the characters in a hurry. If you can find this on the shelf somewhere, BUY IT AND PLAY IT.
Awesome stuff. Can't wait for the sequel.
First off, most open-source creators do NOT live in their parents' basements. Most have good jobs or at least good skills. Most are own their own, have lives and/or families. Most are just doing what they do because they enjoy it. Your stereotypical generalization of them does little to further any debate here, nor does it paint your comments in a decent light.
And you'll find from most of my other comments that I don't fit your definition of the typical Slashdot-worlder (if there is such a thing.) I pay for music, I pay for games. I have strong opinions about intellectual property, yes, but they would probably be closer to yours than to what you believe everyone elses is. I believe firmly in making money, but I believe in doing so based on your abilities, and not by lobbing cease-and-desist grenades at those who 1) haven't done anything wrong (STUPID maybe, more on that in a minute) and 2) can't afford to fight you.
I believe that Blizzard is a lot of talented people, and they make fine products, but, frankly, the way they treat their customers and supporters needs a LOT of work. Maybe a handful of people there are calling the shots, formulating the tactics. Their tactics ARE evil. So, Blizzard as a whole is probably evil the way the Germans where (OH MY GOD HE DIDN'T JUST BRING NAZI GERMANY INTO THIS!!! WOE TO ALL!!! Bite me, it's a good example of how *most* companies work. Most do a lot of things that their average employee would never stand for if it was being done to them, but for some reason, they show up for work every day.) in that mostly, their nice, talented people, they just take their marching orders from an evil few.
It's one thing to protect your IP, it's another to go after hobbyists who did *not* infringe on your IP, who played by the rules, reverse-engineered (LEGAL!) the bnetd protocols with the help of packet sniffers -- NO original code -- and disingenuously accuse them of circumventing your copy protection in order to shut them the hell down.
FreeCraft is a slightly different story. Granted, FreeCraft's maker(s) could have been smarter, and 1) called the game something else and 2) not used graphics that look an awful lot like those from WarCraft. Hell, I'd almost recommend to them if they're out there that they change the name, get other graphics, change the gameplay enough to get Blizzard off their backs, and keep going with their work.
As for Blizzard, you make a damn good product -- accept that, and use your resources to sell your product instead of writing cease-and-desist letters. Learn something from the rest of the gaming industry that lets players mod and extend their games, often to the increased success and sales of the original product. And most importantly, stop treating your *supporters* as the enemy, because at some point in time, your enemy *will* wise up and stopping buying your products.
This is why I don't by Blizzard, and haven't since the bnetd fiasco.
They're evil. They don't deserve to have their methods funded by my cash.
Err. Until apple's service opens up on Windows, rather.
Because, well, if you're not downloading it from a) the copyright holder or b) an entity with permission from the copyright holder to distribute their property online, you're, well, stealing it. Sorry, no grey area there, as much as people like to try to make them.
Choose any rationalization you want -- maybe you're just trying before you buy ( do that with a piece of steak in a grocery store. ) or maybe you think you're sticking it to the Big Media Companies (who are just, in turn going to stick it to me, the guy that still BUYS his cd's. Or the artists, who already don't see enough for what their talents are) or maybe you think that well, since I already own it or owned it at some point in time, it's okay for me to download it. (It isn't.) -- You're just lying to yourself.
I'm _not_ at all for the sheer amount of piracy that goes on. I have close to 600 albums here on my PC, but I paid for them all -- and spent the better part of 4 days ripping them all (caution: the Surgeon General has declared that sitting in front of a PC and burning CDs for 14 hours a day for four days straight is a good way to throw a blood clot.) into MP3s so I can carry them with me much more easily on my nifty new Archos mp3 jukebox. I would _pay_ to download some songs online. I can't wait until Apples' service opens up on the Mac, to try it out. (Mind you, I hope there's a way to get a refund for stuff that isn't even worth a dollar.) I don't have any pirated movies. The few games I play - yup, all paid for.
I'm not for piracy, but I'm also not for Media and Software companies thinking they can wield copyright "law" like a club -- for example, I will *not* buy another Blizzard Game for what they did to the bnetd project. Which is a shame, because I really liked the *Crafts, and Diabos. I would like to play the Ghost console game if it ever comes out, but I won't. I think that copyright terms should be short, and think that there should be some sort of incentive for those who choose to release information into the public domain sooner rather than later. (You can bet that if Disney could write off the value of the early Mickey Mouse stuff as a charitable donation, that shit wouldna been in the public domain YEARS ago.) I think that patent process should be smarter. I don't think that you should be able to patent a "for" loop, (and I'm quite surprised nobody's tried to, yet.) or a business process. (Although I wish I'd been around early enough to patent "Provision of goods or services in exchange for currency," because I'd be too rich to fucking care about any of this. (that's a joke, people.) )
And I certainly don't think that anyone that holds a patent, trademark, or copyright deserves to have his property damaged by remote control because someone half a world away things joe citizen has a song file that might not have been paid for. We have due process of law here, more or less, the last time I checked. If a company wants to go after someone, they can use the courts like everyone else.
Anyhoo, yeah, there's a bit of a tangent for ya. The meat of it is: I call them thieves because they're stealing. Period.
If you're willing to quit the party, please do.
If you're not, that's perfectly understandable and certainly your right. But at the very least, send letters to your representatives and other influential State and Federal representatiives. Get some pressure on these folks, and keep it there.
And wouldn't you know it, there's a freaking typo.
"without and hint of due process"
Any, dammit! ANY. I kan tipe. Rilly.
And, as promised... another note. This one sent to my state Senators, the majority Leader, several key Senate Committee leaders, the President and Vice President, and going out soon to influential members of the House. Feel free to send quit the Republican party along with me, and use my letters as you see fit -- I won't try to destroy your computer, I promise. ;)
/ 20030617/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music )
Dear Influential Member of the Republican Party,
It is with great disappointment today that I write to you to say my farewell to the Republican Party, and to tell you that you have Senator Hatch to thank for it.
It was reported today that Senator Hatch strongly advocated giving large companies free reign to destroy the private property of U.S. citizens they suspect of infringing on their copyrights -- without and hint of due process, or any legal process for that matter.
(URL: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap
How very irresponsible. How very disgusting. How VERY un-American.
I very much agree that the en masse downloading of music and movies is theivery. However, day by day, the Founders' concept of copyright is being eroded, as materials that should have entered into the public domain as intended, are being horded by large corporations. Laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act are being used by copyright holders as a weapon to squelch free academic and political speech, and preventing consumers from making perfectly legal, Fair Use copies and excerpts of copyrighted materials. And now, the Senator from Utah wants to teach "a few hundred thousand" of us a cruel cruel lesson. Well, isn't that nice. Never mind all the perfectly good rights of perfectly decent citizens that would be basically trampled to make that happen.
I'm sorry. I can't support even the SUGGESTION of a system like that. And I can't support the person that would support that, or the party that would call him a member.
So, I'm leaving. I will not vote Republican on the local, state or federal level. And I will encourage as many people as I can to do the same.
Regretfully and Sincerely, Farewell.
Ed R. Zahurak
---
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much as even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Sincerely,
Ed R. Zahurak
Actually, I'm hoping the Republican Party leadership reads Slashdot. ;)
Nah, I'll send out some more letters soon. And I do, seriously encourage all of you to do the same. The technically-inclined average joe needs an equivalent of the NRA. A single-issue, extremely focused block of voters who can tell these guys, "we don't give a fuck what you think about abortion, or SUV's, or welfare, vote OUR way on technology, copyright and intellectual property, or we don't vote YOUR way."
(My apologies to Andrew Vachss for paraphrasing his philosophy here, but he's right.)
I, for one, just quit the Republican Party, and sent the good Senator a nice message telling him why. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to do the same. Here's a nice little template to follow:
Dear Senator Hatch,
I'm writing to you after reading an Associated Press news article in which you stated your support to destroy the computers of those who infringe on copyrights.
"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize..." you were quoted as saying.
While I do agree with you that folks downloading entire catalogs of music en masse from the internet are basically thieves, I think this is quite the extreme and wrong stance, especially given the sad state of copyright law that now exists.
It's pretty clear today that copyright now favors large entertainment companies instead of any kind of scientific and social progress as the founders had intended, with copyright terms now exceeding most people's life expectancies (what good is the public domain when the public that could benefit from it no longer exists.) and when laws like the DMCA makes it a crime to copy something for FAIR USE if it happens to be encrypted in the first place. It's also pretty clear that Congress now favors the entertainment companies rather than the people that elected them, when they're willing to advocate or condone a "solution" that would destroy the private property of their constituents, without so much even lip service paid to due process.
Well, if you're willing to be so extreme, Senator, so am I. I just quit the Republican Party. While I'm not from your state, and Pennsylvania is far from a Republican stronghold, I intend to encourage others to do the same.
Maybe a few hundred thousand of us, and you'll realize something.
Sincerely,
Ed R. Zahurak
I just use any piece of 8.5 x 11 paper I find to make a sleeve:
1. Take the piece of paper, and holding it portrait-wise, fold the bottom up to about an inch down the page (try this for a while with a CD in it, and you'll see how it works.)
2. fold that top inch down into a flap.
3. Open it up, and fold in about 1.5 inches on each side. (Again, use the CD in it, and you'll see how I mean.)
4. Toss CDs into the inside flaps, fold it up, and fold the top flap over. Presto! Instant and compant CD sleeve.
and includes this choice quotation: "..a German fan was outraged that the cockpit dimensions of an X-wing star fighter varied from those in the movies. Blackman looked into it and found that the game's version was indeed off -- by 6 centimeters."
As is oft heard on The Bob and Tom Show, Bob (Bobcat) Goldthwait said it best about rabid Star Wars fans:
"Have any of you nerds ever seen a vagina?! Because if you had, you'd throw that Stormtrooper cookie jar right out the window!!!"
No, what I'm saying is akin to saying it should be illegal to sneak into someone's house (by ANY means), open their medicine cabinet (by ANY means), and replace their heart medication (by ANY means) with a different medication (by ANY means) because _you_ think that's what's best for them (by ANY means).
That's what I'm saying.
And, guess what.... It IS illegal to do just that, be we talking about medication OR computer systems.
These folks found a way (*cough* exploit!) to get arbitrary code (*cough* exploit!) onto a user's PC without their knowledge (*cough* exploit!), and execute it (*cough* exploit!) because _they_ thought it was best for that user's PC. (By ANY means.) But it was, is, and ever shall be NOT UP TO THEM TO MAKE THAT CALL.
Had it been a corportation, had it been the government, had it been Microsoft, you'd all be screaming bloody murder. You *should* be screaming bloody murder _now_. RIAA doesn't know what's best for you. Microsoft doesn't know what's best for you. The government doesn't know what's best for you. Certainly, a group of IRC white-hats don't know what's best for you either.
On the contrary. It is *exactly* the same as what RIAA wants to do.
To use your own words, was these guys did was use an exploit "to subvert security on" people's computers.
Just because their intentions were good, doesn't mean they had legal grouds to do so.
All they're doing is putting a file on a webpage. It's not their fault that the infected machines run whatever is on that page.
Generally, have illegaly used someone else's computer, you have to have defeated some sort of access control mechanism. At least that's how it is in NYS.
Except that the "access control mechanism" is already broken. The [illegal] virus has already set up shop on that PC. The "fix" merely exploits the behavior of the virus to get a file onto you PC.
Put another way: Just because you didn't create the *original* hole, doesn't give you *any* right to crawl into it on your own.
Put another way: If your software ends up on my machine, ends up *running* on my machine, and I didn't agree to have it there, or run it, you're still in the wrong, no matter your intentions.
So, for the sake of my argument, and because it's what the fix really is, I'm going to call it was it is: an EXPLOIT.
Those infected with the virus are pretty fortunate that the folks who posted the exploit to the Geocities site were well-intentioned folks, instead of someone with more destruction in mind.
Had a black-hat type gotten to the Geocities page first and posted an even _more_ malicious exploit, I have a feeling the opinions here would be very different. If it Were RIAA or the MPAA?!? Look out, man! The bitching and moaning would never cease.
But, it's the whole road to hell/good intentions pavement thing. Eh.
I *like* it, but my computer room is about 2 degrees away from being a firetrap as it is.
I wonder if the folks at Google know about these guys. They'd probably freakin' *love* 'em, given the stories I've heard about their velcroed-together servers.
There a UK company that ships a server encased in real used pizza boxes, too.
The Gruv-X works pretty well. It's tiny, about the size of a half-dollar, and has a range of about 10-20 feet, The sound quality is good, maybe not stellar, but good enough for driving around in a car with a 30+ year old tuner and *mono* speakers. : )
Don't knock some of the Circuit City installers. Okay, well, any store but those in the Boston Area. :) My brother does installs at a CC up that way. He's built cars that have competed and placed very well in the SPL World Finals. And he's the best, too, when it comes to building quality-sounding and -looking installs, not just loud ones.
Every so often, one of those "kids" knows his shit.
You don't always have to look to an "mp3 ready" head unit.
:P ) So, I just popped the face off the center of the dash, popped the EQ, plugged the cord in and snaked the other end down to the lower storage compartment, and ta-da, I have a fixed input for the player in the Grand Am.
I kinda just went through this. I have two cars -- one is a 1999 Grand Am, and the other a stock 1969 Cadillac convertible. For a rather looong road trip I was taking, I recently purchased an Archos 20GB MP3 Jukebox. It has a few quirks, but it's a nice unit.
For the Cadillac, I bought Cendyne's Gruv-X wireless FM transmitter. The Caddy's still got the stock radio, and I do *not* want to rip it out. The Gruv-X was the perfect way to go. It was about $25 (Slightly higher at ThinkGeek.com.), runs off of one AAA battery for about 8 hours. Works well. I can tune it to any frequency, and play my tunes.
For the Grand Am, I kinda lucked out. I dropped a pretty nice stereo system when I bought it, including an in-dash EQ that has *two* sets of stereo RCA inputs. (I wish I could remember the make/model, but I don't, and it's raining, so I'm not running out to the car.
And, of course, the optional accessories, like a portable power invertor for the car, so that I can recharge the player on those loooooooooong road trips, like this last one. All in all, not a bad set-up.