Why would TiVo care one way or the other. And even if they did care, what difference would that make?
If I go buy one of their boxes, it's mine. That's what buying something means. If I want to smash it with hammer, that's my business and no one elses. And if I want to rip it's guts out and add a 34 terrabyte storage system, that's my business too.
Even the idea that TiVo could yield some control over this at all is somewhat troublesome, either from a legal or technical standpoint (although I don't know if they could do either). As time goes on, we see more and more companies trying to yield more control over the use of their products after they're bought and sold. Remember DIVX?
Smart appliances? Be very afraid. I fear the day will come that your toaster will report back to home base to say that you usually burn your toast, and because eating excessive ammounts of burnt foods can cause cancer, your insurance company won't pay for your treatment. (sorry, wandering a bit toward the edge of topic for this one)
These sorts of problems will continue for as long as future generations grow up believing that they are entitled to those things that previous generations had to work for. To read some of the newsgroups and forums (especially the one at http://forums.napster.com), so many of those people truly believe that they're doing absolutely nothing wrong, that they're not stealing from anyone (because bits are not "tangible"), and that in fact they're happy in punishing an industry that reaped the benefits of a prosperous economy.
The key here is education. The recording industry and/or artists need to find a way to explain to people that through their actions, they are indeed stealing. Intellectual property has real value, and when it's copied around with no compensation for the creator of that work, it's value is decreased.
This whole thing will get thrown out the first time some slimy spammer convinces a judge that there's no possible way they can determine whether mail sent to the email addresses they have on their list are going to Colorado or not.
Personally, I'd prefer a simple ammendment to the junk fax law that includes spam in the same category as junk faxes. (The junk fax law is vague when it comes to definitions... spam could actually be considered a junk fax by the definitions they used... but I believe this was tested in court and failed)
Be careful not to send check off remove addresses because 99% of the time they're fake. Also be aware of re-directors in the spamvertised website address. Usually if the address has a ?http:// in it, then it's using a redirector. Put a space after the '?' to separate out the real spamvertised website. And for HTML spam, always send the HTML code, not just a cut and paste of the page itself.
Libraries select materials based on patron interest and budget. There are guidelines for appropriate materials, and the limited budget ensures that many things that might be useful will not get selected.
So, if I donate a subscription to Hustler to my local library, and donate some money to pay for the shelf space to keep it, they'll put it out for all to read, right?
How many libraries keep Penthouse and Hustler on the shelves? It's already off their shelves, so what's the big deal in keeping it off their computers as well?
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
It is a stupid plan, plain and simple. It should never be allowable under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. It is unreasonable to assume that since you might need to intercept anyone's email at any time - you have a right to place an infrastructure that can intercept EVERYONE's email.
Agreed. To take this a step further, what makes email any different than verbal communication? Merely the fact that it can be stored, retrieved, searched, etc.
So for those that say Carnivore is generally OK, then how about we allow the FBI to dangle a microphone in everyone's living room? Don't worry, they'll only listen in if they have a court order to do so. They won't search the recordings looking for words and phrases that might indicate that you're doing something wrong. They're really on the up and up and only doing this to catch criminals, so you have nothing to worry about.
What people seem to forget is that everything is STILL in the artist's court. Always has been.
The artist made a choice. Those that signed with major labels choose to do so. No one put a gun to their head.
If someone wants to release a CD and charge $1M for it, they have every right to do that. I have every right not to buy it. I don't have a right to take it anyway. I just don't understand the reasoning of many in the music theft community. Don't like what's available? Think it's too much money? Fine... find some artist selling their wares for lower bucks, or better yet, ones giving it away. Folks who bitch about Metallica and their anti-Napster Inc. stand but still listen to Metallica anyway are nothing but hypocrites.
If people don't like the music industry, then fine... don't support it. But I see too many people who want it both ways. -S
Sure, Napster can be used for legal purposes. But I challenge you to fire up Napster and find non-copyrighted files for download. Yes, Napster Inc. will terminate the accounts of those found to be trafficing in copyrighted materials, but only after those accounts are specifically reported to Napster. Napster Inc. has not shown due diligence in weeding accounts themselves. It's a rather trivial matter... pick any account. Delete it if it's sharing copyrighted materials. Rinse. Repeat.
I've been trying to keep on top of advertisting sites and adding them to the "restricted sites" list in IE. Is there a nice list of sites anywhere that should be blocked to minimize tracking? Sites like... *.doubleclick.net *.admaximize.com *.adsmart.com *.aureate.com *.avenuea.com *.engageaudience.net etc... Obviously I could block all cookies, but some are indeed useful.
Slashdot Mirror
If I go buy one of their boxes, it's mine. That's what buying something means. If I want to smash it with hammer, that's my business and no one elses. And if I want to rip it's guts out and add a 34 terrabyte storage system, that's my business too.
Even the idea that TiVo could yield some control over this at all is somewhat troublesome, either from a legal or technical standpoint (although I don't know if they could do either). As time goes on, we see more and more companies trying to yield more control over the use of their products after they're bought and sold. Remember DIVX?
Smart appliances? Be very afraid. I fear the day will come that your toaster will report back to home base to say that you usually burn your toast, and because eating excessive ammounts of burnt foods can cause cancer, your insurance company won't pay for your treatment. (sorry, wandering a bit toward the edge of topic for this one)
-S
These sorts of problems will continue for as long as future generations grow up believing that they are entitled to those things that previous generations had to work for. To read some of the newsgroups and forums (especially the one at http://forums.napster.com), so many of those people truly believe that they're doing absolutely nothing wrong, that they're not stealing from anyone (because bits are not "tangible"), and that in fact they're happy in punishing an industry that reaped the benefits of a prosperous economy.
The key here is education. The recording industry and/or artists need to find a way to explain to people that through their actions, they are indeed stealing. Intellectual property has real value, and when it's copied around with no compensation for the creator of that work, it's value is decreased.
-S
This whole thing will get thrown out the first time some slimy spammer convinces a judge that there's no possible way they can determine whether mail sent to the email addresses they have on their list are going to Colorado or not.
Personally, I'd prefer a simple ammendment to the junk fax law that includes spam in the same category as junk faxes. (The junk fax law is vague when it comes to definitions... spam could actually be considered a junk fax by the definitions they used... but I believe this was tested in court and failed)
-S (receiver of over 3000 spams since '97)
http://spamcop.net
Every piece of spam I get goes there.
Some spamcop.net tips:
Be careful not to send check off remove addresses because 99% of the time they're fake. Also be aware of re-directors in the spamvertised website address. Usually if the address has a ?http:// in it, then it's using a redirector. Put a space after the '?' to separate out the real spamvertised website. And for HTML spam, always send the HTML code, not just a cut and paste of the page itself.
So, if I donate a subscription to Hustler to my local library, and donate some money to pay for the shelf space to keep it, they'll put it out for all to read, right?
Nah, I didn't think so.
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
Agreed. To take this a step further, what makes email any different than verbal communication? Merely the fact that it can be stored, retrieved, searched, etc.
So for those that say Carnivore is generally OK, then how about we allow the FBI to dangle a microphone in everyone's living room? Don't worry, they'll only listen in if they have a court order to do so. They won't search the recordings looking for words and phrases that might indicate that you're doing something wrong. They're really on the up and up and only doing this to catch criminals, so you have nothing to worry about.
This Doctor Fun cartoon says it all...
http://metalab.unc.edu/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200007/df2000 0712.jpg
What people seem to forget is that everything is STILL in the artist's court. Always has been.
The artist made a choice. Those that signed with major labels choose to do so. No one put a gun to their head.
If someone wants to release a CD and charge $1M for it, they have every right to do that. I have every right not to buy it. I don't have a right to take it anyway. I just don't understand the reasoning of many in the music theft community. Don't like what's available? Think it's too much money? Fine... find some artist selling their wares for lower bucks, or better yet, ones giving it away. Folks who bitch about Metallica and their anti-Napster Inc. stand but still listen to Metallica anyway are nothing but hypocrites.
If people don't like the music industry, then fine... don't support it. But I see too many people who want it both ways. -S
Sure, Napster can be used for legal purposes. But I challenge you to fire up Napster and find non-copyrighted files for download. Yes, Napster Inc. will terminate the accounts of those found to be trafficing in copyrighted materials, but only after those accounts are specifically reported to Napster. Napster Inc. has not shown due diligence in weeding accounts themselves. It's a rather trivial matter... pick any account. Delete it if it's sharing copyrighted materials. Rinse. Repeat.
I've been trying to keep on top of advertisting sites and adding them to the "restricted sites" list in IE. Is there a nice list of sites anywhere that should be blocked to minimize tracking? Sites like... *.doubleclick.net *.admaximize.com *.adsmart.com *.aureate.com *.avenuea.com *.engageaudience.net etc... Obviously I could block all cookies, but some are indeed useful.