They know exactly what they're doing here. They can get rid of the users that are, in their view, bandwidth hogs, and claim they're doing it in the name of protecting "intellectual property."
While @home, et al don't give two shakes about IP, they do care about the bandwidth they're selling. They can't oversubscribe their networks if everyone is using 128kbps or 384kbps upstream and 1Mbps or more downstream with Gnutella, Freenet, or other connections.
I wouldn't be surprised if the broadband ISP's start taking a proactive approach, sniffing users looking for file sharing programs, claiming that these violate their TOS, and start issuing warnings/terminations.
Think about it--if you're a cable/DSL provider, what kind of customers do you want? Those who read email and go ga-ga at how much faster web pages with blinking pop-ups load than on dialup, or those who are sucking down a half-gigabyte a day from your NNTP server, and another from each of a couple of "premimum" (i.e. warez, pr0n, mp3, moviez) news servers and have seven Gnutella connections up?
There's a symbiotic relationship between "rights holders" and broadband providers here. Expect things to get worse.
We need to hop on the Fool and other stock boards and articulately discuss the fact (to which Adobe surely will have to attest) that this guy did irreperable damage to Adobe's potential revenue stream by releasing this technology. Be sure to explain that despite his arrest, the code is out there, and like DeCSS, is sure to be copied and mirrored widely. Perhaps the publicity associated with having had one's product cracked lowering one's stock price will deter others from having researchers arrested.
While I don't advocate and don't intend to cause harm to anyone's person or Adobe's physical plant, I would shed no tears if Adobe's HQ burned to the ground, preferably with the decision-maker responsible for this inside.
Your reasoning and cognitive skills are commensurate with what is traditionally expected of a prospective community college graduate. Did you know that if your beloved strict capitalists had their way, there wouldn't be a community college for you to attend? Food for thought, if you're capable. Yeah, I have an ID. Yeah, I post at 2. Suck it.
(I expect VMware would make these user configurable if they are not already)
Or they might not. VMWare is in bed pretty deep with MS--maybe they have to be, since it'd be pretty easy for MS to make the EULA invalid in a VM (legal or not, no corporation would run it in a VM if the EULA denied that right). Or MS could take technical countermeasures (see also DR-DOS and Windows 3.1) to keep XP from running in a VM, essentially putting VMWare out of business.
One thing I noted is that about a year ago, there was an announcement with much fanfare that VMWare would sell bundles of MS licenses with VMWare. At roughly the same time, OS/2 support, which had been worked on and tested for some time, was suddenly dropped. Can I prove cause and effect? No. Are there lots of other reasons support can have been removed? Sure. But the timing's awfully suspect.
Also, VMWare is hard coded to use a certain OUI (Organizational Unit Identifier) for VM network card NIC addresses--meaning they'll always start with a known prefix. VMWare provides no way to change this, meaning that MS or any other organization with access to the NIC address (or even a hash, probably) will know one is running a VM. (Imagine a typical Georgia network nazi reaction to seeing that with a sniffer.)
I'm not confident VMWare's going to be allowing anyone to change hardware serial numbers in VMs--I'll bet they randomize them just to avoid jepoardizing their "strategic relationship" with Microsoft.
When they try to say he was competing for a $50,000 prize, it would be good for the defense to point out the expected value of his prize (as of that day) was $50,000/129,251, or approximately thirty-nine cents.
. . . that a state government is prepared to go after this former employee for "theft" of its computing resources while companies like Real and Netscape can use individuals' machines to spy on people without their consent, and barely suffer a legal scratch.
That said, I hope and pray the thugs prosecuting this case are called out and shown to the public clearly for what they are. Or else we are all in serious danger.
Perhaps this court is ackowledging that this situtation is wrong, and that there should be sufficient friction against entering a contract to show the user knew (or should have known) that's what he was doing. Today, that friction is generally signing one's name with a pen. One should not be able to agree to even the most trivial thing with only a click of a mouse.
What should happen is that fines should be based on income (or perhaps value of the vehicle, since the rich are so good at hiding income from taxation). This way, the guy in the BMW doing 90+ who makes $200K pays $2,000 while the Joe in the Geo Metro (which is probably an affirmative defense against a speeding charge, but I digress) making $20K pays $200. Maybe a bit more of a deterrent.
Problem is if the fines were that high, people actually wouldn't speed, and the income for the state would dry up--which is what speeding fines are really all about.
Re:Physical Attacks Are Not Good
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
It's the same kind of propaganda that causes copyright infringement to be called theft, although certainly to a lesser degree. Just more subtle spin from our masters.
One of OS/2's claims to fame in the 2.x days was that it, unlike Windows 3.1, could format a floppy without bring everything else going on to its knees.
People forced to change passwords and to use passwords with a certain distance from old ones (e.g. no "pass1," "pass2," . . . "passN" will just write them down and/or use the same password across systems with varying degrees of security (e.g. intranet for reading the employee manual and Accounts Payable's mainframe). Then where's your security?
I work in a shop with a system that remembers four passwords. Users routinely change their passwords five times one right after another. You've probably already guessed that the fifth password was the same one the user was using prior to the forced change.
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. Simply because someone disagrees with you does not mean . ..
That's your opinion <grin>. Really, I know that the dichotomy's fallacious, but it does usually produce a vigorous defense!
I hardly think Himmler was a good choice.
What propagandist whould you suggest as recognizable? (I know this will come up again; there's a Napster thread on the main page <guffaw>.) I was actually gratified that someone recognized Himmler; I thought about using Goebbels, but thought that would be even more obscure.
Many website owners like the referrals they get from Google, but don't like the loss of control represented by Google's cache.
If they don't like not being able to play Ministry of Truth, then they should edit their ROBOTS.TXT to not have Google traverse their site. They can't have it both ways.
I remember trying to get past an OS/2 2.11 boot failure with a second monitor on an IBM MDA card and getting thoroughly blown off by IBM because I was trying to run an IBM OS on supported IBM hardware. The attitude of that one employee represented IBM's then arrogance coupled with incompetence that caused them to lose to MS. And, much as I hate Microsoft's dominance, IBM deserved it.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
How can you possibly confuse the word take with the word copy? Is it because they both have four letters? Because they sure as hell don't mean the same thing, which means that copying isn't stealing, and thus infringement isn't theft.
Now that that's settled, let's work on "hacker" vs. "cracker," another example of a word whose meaning is being deliberately distorted by those with a vested interest.
The creator or owner of the media should be compensated for the effort, time and money that went into creating it. To just ignore that is selfish in the extreme.
Read my post again and tell me where I said that creators shouldn't be compensated. (Hint, I didn't.) All I said is that copying is not theft, and I stand by that, as does anyone who isn't dense or deceptive.
Oh, and I find your insinuation that those who consider copyright infringement theft are somehow Nazis utterly pathetic. People always seem to try and make a link to the Nazis whenever their argument is failing... ("Oh, Hitler was a vegetarian, you know..." etc.)
Oh, please. Himmler was just an example of a well-known propagandist, and would have represented what I was saying whether or not he had been a Nazi. Sounds like you're not that confident in your own weak argument for pointing out that merely parenthetical reference. I'm surprised you didn't yell "GODWIN'S LAW! GODWIN'S LAW!"
Slashdot Mirror
While @home, et al don't give two shakes about IP, they do care about the bandwidth they're selling. They can't oversubscribe their networks if everyone is using 128kbps or 384kbps upstream and 1Mbps or more downstream with Gnutella, Freenet, or other connections.
I wouldn't be surprised if the broadband ISP's start taking a proactive approach, sniffing users looking for file sharing programs, claiming that these violate their TOS, and start issuing warnings/terminations.
Think about it--if you're a cable/DSL provider, what kind of customers do you want? Those who read email and go ga-ga at how much faster web pages with blinking pop-ups load than on dialup, or those who are sucking down a half-gigabyte a day from your NNTP server, and another from each of a couple of "premimum" (i.e. warez, pr0n, mp3, moviez) news servers and have seven Gnutella connections up?
There's a symbiotic relationship between "rights holders" and broadband providers here. Expect things to get worse.
You think maybe they've thought of that? I doubt they're using addresses to check out Gnutella that resolve to *.copyright.net, ya' know.
Or prone to hyperbole. But I'll keep you guessing <grin>.
Not at all--just stating facts as Adobe is presenting them to potential or current investors is hardly misinformation.
While I don't advocate and don't intend to cause harm to anyone's person or Adobe's physical plant, I would shed no tears if Adobe's HQ burned to the ground, preferably with the decision-maker responsible for this inside.
I hope you never use the bathroom at work, unless you don't mind being monitored. It's their resources and their time.
Shoot, where are you from? Here, the signs say you can make $1,000 part-time or $3,000 full-time weekly :)!
Your reasoning and cognitive skills are commensurate with what is traditionally expected of a prospective community college graduate. Did you know that if your beloved strict capitalists had their way, there wouldn't be a community college for you to attend? Food for thought, if you're capable. Yeah, I have an ID. Yeah, I post at 2. Suck it.
Watch for that to end soon.
Or they might not. VMWare is in bed pretty deep with MS--maybe they have to be, since it'd be pretty easy for MS to make the EULA invalid in a VM (legal or not, no corporation would run it in a VM if the EULA denied that right). Or MS could take technical countermeasures (see also DR-DOS and Windows 3.1) to keep XP from running in a VM, essentially putting VMWare out of business.
One thing I noted is that about a year ago, there was an announcement with much fanfare that VMWare would sell bundles of MS licenses with VMWare. At roughly the same time, OS/2 support, which had been worked on and tested for some time, was suddenly dropped. Can I prove cause and effect? No. Are there lots of other reasons support can have been removed? Sure. But the timing's awfully suspect.
Also, VMWare is hard coded to use a certain OUI (Organizational Unit Identifier) for VM network card NIC addresses--meaning they'll always start with a known prefix. VMWare provides no way to change this, meaning that MS or any other organization with access to the NIC address (or even a hash, probably) will know one is running a VM. (Imagine a typical Georgia network nazi reaction to seeing that with a sniffer.)
I'm not confident VMWare's going to be allowing anyone to change hardware serial numbers in VMs--I'll bet they randomize them just to avoid jepoardizing their "strategic relationship" with Microsoft.
Whoops. My bad. Make that $2,000/129,251, or approximately one and a half cents.
When they try to say he was competing for a $50,000 prize, it would be good for the defense to point out the expected value of his prize (as of that day) was $50,000/129,251, or approximately thirty-nine cents.
That said, I hope and pray the thugs prosecuting this case are called out and shown to the public clearly for what they are. Or else we are all in serious danger.
Perhaps this court is ackowledging that this situtation is wrong, and that there should be sufficient friction against entering a contract to show the user knew (or should have known) that's what he was doing. Today, that friction is generally signing one's name with a pen. One should not be able to agree to even the most trivial thing with only a click of a mouse.
Not hardly. Just the original Forty-One--the Trident II SSBNs are still deployed at Bangor, WA and King's Bay, GA.
Problem is if the fines were that high, people actually wouldn't speed, and the income for the state would dry up--which is what speeding fines are really all about.
It's the same kind of propaganda that causes copyright infringement to be called theft, although certainly to a lesser degree. Just more subtle spin from our masters.
But if you're not going to use it, what's the point of having it? And what might you break installing stuff outside of it?
One of OS/2's claims to fame in the 2.x days was that it, unlike Windows 3.1, could format a floppy without bring everything else going on to its knees.
I work in a shop with a system that remembers four passwords. Users routinely change their passwords five times one right after another. You've probably already guessed that the fifth password was the same one the user was using prior to the forced change.
That's your opinion <grin>. Really, I know that the dichotomy's fallacious, but it does usually produce a vigorous defense!
I hardly think Himmler was a good choice.
What propagandist whould you suggest as recognizable? (I know this will come up again; there's a Napster thread on the main page <guffaw>.) I was actually gratified that someone recognized Himmler; I thought about using Goebbels, but thought that would be even more obscure.
If they don't like not being able to play Ministry of Truth, then they should edit their ROBOTS.TXT to not have Google traverse their site. They can't have it both ways.
I remember trying to get past an OS/2 2.11 boot failure with a second monitor on an IBM MDA card and getting thoroughly blown off by IBM because I was trying to run an IBM OS on supported IBM hardware. The attitude of that one employee represented IBM's then arrogance coupled with incompetence that caused them to lose to MS. And, much as I hate Microsoft's dominance, IBM deserved it.
How can you possibly confuse the word take with the word copy? Is it because they both have four letters? Because they sure as hell don't mean the same thing, which means that copying isn't stealing, and thus infringement isn't theft.
Now that that's settled, let's work on "hacker" vs. "cracker," another example of a word whose meaning is being deliberately distorted by those with a vested interest.
Read my post again and tell me where I said that creators shouldn't be compensated. (Hint, I didn't.) All I said is that copying is not theft, and I stand by that, as does anyone who isn't dense or deceptive.
Oh, and I find your insinuation that those who consider copyright infringement theft are somehow Nazis utterly pathetic. People always seem to try and make a link to the Nazis whenever their argument is failing... ("Oh, Hitler was a vegetarian, you know..." etc.)
Oh, please. Himmler was just an example of a well-known propagandist, and would have represented what I was saying whether or not he had been a Nazi. Sounds like you're not that confident in your own weak argument for pointing out that merely parenthetical reference. I'm surprised you didn't yell "GODWIN'S LAW! GODWIN'S LAW!"