Right now, VMware is a vehicle for selling Windows licenses, as is VirtualPC. (Coincidentally, OS/2 support was dropped by VMware around the time of that announcement. It's possible they sweetened the deal for Redmond by making sure OS/2 wouldn't run on VMware, though the stated reasons were difficulty of making it fast, and not a significant enough market.)
VirtualPC actually emulates an x86 processor, so it can run on non-x86 platforms (e.g. Mac PPC). But VMware uses the virtualization features of the x86 processors, and is wed pretty tightly to them. I imagine VMware does a nice business with its server consolidation products (ESX/GSX) and in the security industry.
I can't see MS cutting off VMware because people run Windows on what are primarily Linux boxes, since they still sell licenses. I expect the death of VMware as a desktop solution will come quickly, though, if Windows is tied to TCPA-like hardware a la NGSCB (formerly known as Palladium). Then virtualization of the kind VMware provides, which would allow access to memory of a running system from the eyes of an omnisicent (via the host OS) certainly won't be supported, and probably won't be tolerated.
The reason the networks like kazaa and gnutella aren't responsible is because they aren't running any servers. Those operating nodes in the case of kazaa and gnutella are still vulnerable to individual legal attacks, as the RIAA has recently demonstrated.
If we can get Linux as the base for Windows, then people may start developing programs directly for Linux that bypass Windows altogether.
That approach was tried by IBM with OS/2. Unfortunately, since OS/2 did such a nice job of running Windows apps, developers like WordPerfect Corp. (don't laugh, they were a force back then) abandoned their OS/2 ports. Why? Because the OS/2 users could just use the Windows version of the product!
In other words, by trying to 'police' freenet in this fashion, you are thwarting your own goals, and making sure that your file is widely propagated across a large number of nodes
That's pretty cool, and I hadn't thought of it that way. But can't the poor sod whose machine hands the file associated with that key to the *AA agent's machine still be targeted for legal action?
Ah, but you can set your node to not store any data, just forward. When you get data from a neighbour node, you have no idea if that node has stored the data at all, and you have no way of finding out.
Didn't realize that--thanks. But the "you have no way of finding out" brings us back to that "willfully blind" doctrine.
As for Freenet's stated goal being circumvention of laws, I don't remember having read that anywhere -- except circumvention of certain laws in certain totalitarian states. US officials, being such lovers of freedom, should have no problem with that goal.
You're right--I mistakenly read that into it. The problem is that using it's (really) stated goal of anonymous speech, a prosecutor can easily spin it that way, unfortunately. I wish the U.S. officials were the lovers of freedom they should be, but they aren't.
1. I specifically referred to the U.S. in my original post. And the Berne Convention is causing similar laws to be passed in the EU. Freenet nodes outside the civilized world of North America and Europe could be safe, I guess.
2. The language in the DMCA about what constitutes a "service provider" is vague, but in order to be eligible for the safe harbor, the Freenet node operator would have to be determined to be an ISP. Even if that happens, the safe harbor is lost because the node operator is "willfully blind" to any infringement. And the DMCA only provides a safe harbor with respect to copyright infringement--not for obscenity or terrorist communication which could also be carried upon it.
Except that Freenet caches data. Data that's routed is also stored for a time. That, and the fact that the network's stated goal is circumvention of laws leads me to conclude that when the first operators are taken to court, judges and juries will take a very dim view of the "I was only routing packets" defense.
It doesn't matter. If they were just forwarding it, they are now distributing it. And the node operator's not knowing what it is isn't a defense, since s/he's "willfully blind."
A "rights" holder knows the freenet key of certain material. Can the holder not hust write a script hop onto Freenet, request that key (and only that key), and fire off C&Ds to all the ISPs whose allocations include the addresses that respond? Seems simple enough--even with blinding of requests, the intellectual "property" holder can still point to the nodes that respond as having distributed the material--just as the exit server from Mixmaster (or freedom.net, before it became a casualty of 9/11 hysteria), etc. is vulnerable to legal attacks.
This might be able to be foiled with some kind of chaffing in which nodes respond even if they don't have a piece of the data in question, but that would introduce more inefficiency.
In particular, those who are "willfully blind" to infringement losing safe harbor provisions, I don't see how Freenet will survive as a means of propagating "questionable" material. And since that's it's raison d'être, then it probably won't survive at all in the U.S.
It may be a broad generalization, but it's not a contradiction. The analogy you raise with road regulations is a good one: obviously, things would be much worse on the roads if they were completely unregulated!
I'll concede that regulations introduce friction into commerce, and sometimes have unintended consequences. But in the case of businesses, they serve primarily to keep the self-interest of them and their executives from causing enough harm that the politicians whose campaigns they fund have trouble getting reelected, but allowing enough of it to make loads of cash.
I'll lay odds that most of those new regulations are the results of new ways businesses found to abuse the consumer and the public trust. If business in general acted honorably, there would be no need for new regulations. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
2. The "free market" for DRM consists of cartels--the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc. If intrusive DRM is allowed, then that is the only format in which the cartel will make media and software available. The cartel controls 99 44/100% of all media and software made.
3. The "free market" won't be able to work its magic, because of a bigassed barrier to entry known alternately as TCPA, Palladium, and the Next Generation Secure Computing Base. The cartel will hold the signing keys needed to run software on this platform. (Yes, I know they say this is not how it will work, and that the first iteration probably won't be that restrictive. Think "frog boiling.")
Slashdot Mirror
VirtualPC actually emulates an x86 processor, so it can run on non-x86 platforms (e.g. Mac PPC). But VMware uses the virtualization features of the x86 processors, and is wed pretty tightly to them. I imagine VMware does a nice business with its server consolidation products (ESX/GSX) and in the security industry.
I can't see MS cutting off VMware because people run Windows on what are primarily Linux boxes, since they still sell licenses. I expect the death of VMware as a desktop solution will come quickly, though, if Windows is tied to TCPA-like hardware a la NGSCB (formerly known as Palladium). Then virtualization of the kind VMware provides, which would allow access to memory of a running system from the eyes of an omnisicent (via the host OS) certainly won't be supported, and probably won't be tolerated.
The reason the networks like kazaa and gnutella aren't responsible is because they aren't running any servers. Those operating nodes in the case of kazaa and gnutella are still vulnerable to individual legal attacks, as the RIAA has recently demonstrated.
That approach was tried by IBM with OS/2. Unfortunately, since OS/2 did such a nice job of running Windows apps, developers like WordPerfect Corp. (don't laugh, they were a force back then) abandoned their OS/2 ports. Why? Because the OS/2 users could just use the Windows version of the product!
Good point wrt anonymizer.
D'oh! Now I have--thanks!
That's pretty cool, and I hadn't thought of it that way. But can't the poor sod whose machine hands the file associated with that key to the *AA agent's machine still be targeted for legal action?
Did you emerge it, or just grab a tarball? emerge is grabbing 5.1 on my system.
Didn't realize that--thanks. But the "you have no way of finding out" brings us back to that "willfully blind" doctrine.
As for Freenet's stated goal being circumvention of laws, I don't remember having read that anywhere -- except circumvention of certain laws in certain totalitarian states. US officials, being such lovers of freedom, should have no problem with that goal.
You're right--I mistakenly read that into it. The problem is that using it's (really) stated goal of anonymous speech, a prosecutor can easily spin it that way, unfortunately. I wish the U.S. officials were the lovers of freedom they should be, but they aren't.
2. The language in the DMCA about what constitutes a "service provider" is vague, but in order to be eligible for the safe harbor, the Freenet node operator would have to be determined to be an ISP. Even if that happens, the safe harbor is lost because the node operator is "willfully blind" to any infringement. And the DMCA only provides a safe harbor with respect to copyright infringement--not for obscenity or terrorist communication which could also be carried upon it.
Except that Freenet caches data. Data that's routed is also stored for a time. That, and the fact that the network's stated goal is circumvention of laws leads me to conclude that when the first operators are taken to court, judges and juries will take a very dim view of the "I was only routing packets" defense.
Ah, but ISPs have a DMCA safe harbor, and can take down content that is infringing or otherwise illegal.
It doesn't matter. If they were just forwarding it, they are now distributing it. And the node operator's not knowing what it is isn't a defense, since s/he's "willfully blind."
Yes, and IIRC, Southwest successfully fought off an ADA challenge to that practice.
A "rights" holder knows the freenet key of certain material. Can the holder not hust write a script hop onto Freenet, request that key (and only that key), and fire off C&Ds to all the ISPs whose allocations include the addresses that respond? Seems simple enough--even with blinding of requests, the intellectual "property" holder can still point to the nodes that respond as having distributed the material--just as the exit server from Mixmaster (or freedom.net, before it became a casualty of 9/11 hysteria), etc. is vulnerable to legal attacks.
This might be able to be foiled with some kind of chaffing in which nodes respond even if they don't have a piece of the data in question, but that would introduce more inefficiency.
In particular, those who are "willfully blind" to infringement losing safe harbor provisions, I don't see how Freenet will survive as a means of propagating "questionable" material. And since that's it's raison d'être, then it probably won't survive at all in the U.S.
dialup is all I'm going to need.
Word!
I'm having trouble telling whether you're being satirical or trolling :).
I'll concede that regulations introduce friction into commerce, and sometimes have unintended consequences. But in the case of businesses, they serve primarily to keep the self-interest of them and their executives from causing enough harm that the politicians whose campaigns they fund have trouble getting reelected, but allowing enough of it to make loads of cash.
Having a copy of music on a moldy 8-track doesn't entitle you to a new digital copy, unfortunately.
I'll lay odds that most of those new regulations are the results of new ways businesses found to abuse the consumer and the public trust. If business in general acted honorably, there would be no need for new regulations. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
And hopefully it won't result in the incarceration of the same number of people as has the drug war.
Oh, never mind that. That was just the value of my 15" Powerbook.
2. The "free market" for DRM consists of cartels--the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc. If intrusive DRM is allowed, then that is the only format in which the cartel will make media and software available. The cartel controls 99 44/100% of all media and software made.
3. The "free market" won't be able to work its magic, because of a bigassed barrier to entry known alternately as TCPA, Palladium, and the Next Generation Secure Computing Base. The cartel will hold the signing keys needed to run software on this platform. (Yes, I know they say this is not how it will work, and that the first iteration probably won't be that restrictive. Think "frog boiling.")
Or Win98 lite without IE and with the slim and trim Windows 95 explorer. Stable and fast goodness.
der W00t, die W00t, oder das W00t?
</font>
~~~