Re:They help, and they hurt.
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 1
This is by far one of the biggest myths of patents. Google "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" and read his paper.
Re:Clarification on the enzyme issue.
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 1
"So why didn't they find it first?"
There are many reasons you can be wrong here. They most likely were the ones to find it first. Now the reason a company has a patent on it brings me to my next series of probabilities (which you would know are common if you have ever done reading on the subject). The company could have given the Uni. some funding with attached strings, such as the corp. gaining "IP" rights to all the research in question. Second, Uni's do basic research, which is of utmost importance. The company then simply takes that research and finds a way to apply it to medicine that they can sell. Third, legal issues (which can get complicated) can end up with the corp owning the "IP".
""chicken and egg" problem " Somehow nature didn't have too much of a problem creating that chicken. It seems the problem is where we try and understand which came first. Assuming that companies won't fund research because they can no longer own "IP" is ignorant. To assume that people won't study science because one day they won't "own" their ideas, is absurd.
"There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame."
Why is it a shame? I think it is a shame many keep insisting "IP" is good and that it just needs some changes (yet keep repeating the same things without no real solution). I think it is similar to saying "slavery is good it just needs some changes." Those that tie "IP" with money look at IP as good, just as those that tied slavery with money saw it as good. Don't include money in the equation and try and understand "IP", now after you have a good understanding about "IP" without money involved, put money back into the equation. You would be amazed at what you learn. I think it is a shame people don't even consider what it would be like without "IP". Instead, everyone just makes the immediate assumption that without "IP" our economy is doomed to fail, that creativity will cease to exist, and no more new technology will be created.
How often do you read/think/question the subject of "IP"? I have been doing that since my Freshmen year in high school. I am now a sophomore in college. I've read many sources on the subject, thought about it almost every single day (seriously, although not as much this past year), and questioned many aspects of it. Please do some reading on the other perspective. Imagine how things would go without IP. Most important, don't make assumptions.
It has to do with more than just WASTE. He stated that the company controls what he does and that coding is a form of free expression to him. He basically doesn't want the company to control his free expression. WASTE is just one example.
"I don't think the biggest threat to the MPAA is independent content producers, I really don't. "
There are millions of artists, yet the RIAA represents a very small fraction. Second, technology is making it much easier for an independent artist to record their work and distribute it. Technology is helping independent artists and one day even video creation will be at the point that creative individuals will be able to produce works that could be hard to distinguish from high expense Hollywood films. Why does the RIAA exist? The name says it all. If other authorities took control of distribution or a more independent distribution of music and video over the internet by individuals or many small to medium businesses was to happen it would spell doom for the RIAA and MPAA.
Independent artists are RIAA's and MPAA's biggest threats. How would they control the independents without such a grasp on distribution.
"Local music has been performed for far longer than the RIAA has been in existence, and has had no detrimental effect to that organization..."
The reason for this goes back to the history of recording. Technology is changing all this.
"in fact, given the current trends in popular culture and recent FCC decisions, the RIAA will probably be stronger than ever"
Legally they can make themselves as strong as they want. It won't stop piracy or independent artists. Music distribution is changing. Laws never stopped the U.S. from going independent, nor will it stop the artists.
I just scanned your post really quickly and the last sentence caught my eye. "They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think they were losing money." They spend the money because they would like more of it. Losing money, no. If someone doesn't buy something of theirs, they don't lose money. They simply don't make any. Too many people on slashdot don't understand what "lose" means. Businesses don't lose money if someone doesn't buy from them, THEY JUST DON'T MAKE MONEY. Thank you.
You pretty much got it right about short and long term economic insight. I didn't really get to the point on that one for some strange reason. Sometimes my thoughts are all there (so many), but when it comes time to write I can't put it down well. Thoughts are like webs and sentences are like strings. I have trouble getting my web of thoughts into strings many times.
Things that can be considered ethical. Ethics is not a very debating topic, unless you get into details. So when I mean positive, obvious things like respect, don't murder/cheat/steal/etc. are things that come to mind. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my statement. I do my best to define vague terms, but they slip sometimes.
I've noticed posts already criticising the article. Shame on them. They all cry about copy protection, then when real good material is presented they throw insults at it. This article is about the ethics of copy protection, not about money. There is too much speak of money when it comes to issues such as these. Too many fail to realize that money should not be the priority. Money can not and should not answer all questions. If you applied this reasoning to everything, then you would be supporting slavery, murder, terrorism, and many other bad things. For example, if I dodged the entire issue of human rights and when straight to money talk, then I could show slavery was necessary. I don't believe in slavery though, and I'm sure most here don't either. Yet, when you speak in terms of money, many evils prevail. There isn't any clear violation of ethics when it comes to copy protection, because when anyone talks about it, it comes down to money almost everytime. Ever take money out of the picture when it comes to issues such as these? You'll be surprised at what you find. In fact, slavery was bad economically no matter how it seemed when spoken in terms of money. This was not evident to those who owned slaves. Equality is more powerful than anyone can imagine. The closer we have come to it, the more prosperous we have become. Copy protection is something those that own IP believe in and those who aren't educated well enough on the subject. Many will disagree with me, but imagine this. Those that said the world was round, the ones that said there was no devil inside the insane, or the ones against slavery were considered crazy themselves at the time. Today we call many of these people attempting to prevent more IP protection and possibly turn it around communists, hippies, or simply people who want everything for free. I guess the world is flat after all.
Unfortunately, the problem becomes when people don't really understand the "Great truths" and instead have a daily reinforcement of things like racism. That is how cults attempt to maintain their power over all the members. If your fed a daily dose of a negative and you don't know any better, then there is a very good change you will believe it. There are a lot of people out there that have very akward beliefs and over time some do get a lot worse. I've met quite a few people over the years that had strange beliefs (cult like beliefs) and you would be surprised how normal they seemed til you got to know them. Religions do the same as the cults except they reinforce positives. Then there is the problem that reinforcement does little to nothing to help free thought or creativity. Not enough people question what they are told to believe. I do agree with your statements. Whether it takes reinforcement for people to realise what is meant by the "Great truths" is a matter of discussion. I believe it depends on a lot of factors.
I'm not experienced enough in programming just yet to really understand the answer to this question so please let me know what you think. Is it possible with all the lines of code in both Linux and the UNIX code they are comparing that there would be similar code due to basic methods of programming? Could someone have just simply coded some Linux kernel code that matches that in UNIX without ever seeing the UNIX code? It only makes sense that there aren't that many different ways to do one thing well at times. So to have something almost identical would seem feesable. Then again, if it is almost identical and SCO wants to, they could do slight modification of their code to look exactly like the code in Linux to attempt to prove something. If they get caught, which is possible if the code in question was written by a well known Linux programmer that has no ties with UNIX, then they are totally screwed. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do question if Microsoft is somehow behind this. The entire attack, the speeches, the letters, the press, all seem to have a pattern of FUD and various legal methods to destroy Linux. If this is true, it won't matter anyway. Linux will never fail because of its nature.
This is exactly the book I was going to recommend. It has to do with AI (swarm AI), nanotechnology, and programming (sort of). I'm not a fiction reader. The book just happened to be sitting on a shelf at work and I have time to read where I work (projection booth), so I read it. I have to say it is a good read though. I also happened to read 1984 at work as well, also a good read.
Maybe this is the big bag theory. Some creatures way back before us and before the big bang accidently annihilated themselves, thus causing life to recycle. (Just a crazy thought) Also, maybe to be safe they could do this in space. Or are the machines/devices/etc. too large to send into space?
It didn't literally question anything. It is more like a story put out that causes one to question their own beliefs, how it applies to our current views, or just certain details in the movie that gave some insight into something. For example, when both the oracle and the architect spoke they spoke of everything like it was all computer science. Just thinking about how one day we may be able to model our reality to a degree in a computer environment makes you think. There is also the whole issue about the war. It is clear that the war is not simply man vs machine. Everyone is looking for the truth, but you can never tell what the truth is. Everyone has their own view of what is real and what isn't. Then there is the question of who is telling their side of beliefs and who is simply lying to promote an outcome or maybe some other purpose. It also gets into AI in an indirect way. For example, Agent Smith replicates himself and wants to destroy Neo. Has he taken on a virus like behavior? Is this something software may one day do? Then you get into wondering about the correlation between software and biological life forms. I could go on, but I'm sure you can think of your own questions. There is so much to learn by simply questioning everything we know. Hence my sig.
I agree with you, you should have been instantly modded down. Too bad it didn't happen. I already see some have replied to your post. So I'll just add one thing. Too many people were turned off from the movie because they simply did not understand it. It began asking many questions and throwing ideas out that one had to really think about. It really disappoints me that people are turned off from thinking once in a while. If all you expected from the movie was action, you got it. Do not complain about those that found a little more meaning to the movie than just some kicks and bullets.
Forgot to mention. That is why Microsoft is using DRM. The DRM is about controlling the music distribution. If you don't pay, you don't play. This gives them a constant flow of money. This all goes back to the question of intellectual property. Something I do not believe in and neither did Thomas Jefferson. Only reason he agreed to it is because at the time it provided a means for distributing ideas which before the communication technology we have today was a good thing. Anyway, I'm going off-topic, sorry. Microsoft is attempting to gain control of music distribution just like everyone else. That is part of the reason why the RIAA is fighting so hard. The top executives at these recording companies do not want to hand over the control of distribution to these technology companies, but want it for themselves. Can MS get part of the share? That is something that will depend upon a lot of factors. It especially depends on what music they get to distribute using the system. DRM is a technology that is doomed to fail in a free world. If someone sold you a car with a device that prevented the car from running after a certain amount of time or if you stopped paying, what would you do? Even worse is the fact that DRM attempts to prevent one from doing what they wish with an intagible item (is item even the right word?). MS is putting a lot of hope on this Orwellian technology. Let us all hope it fails.
Quite true. The ones resisting the change (because they do believe in their model) are many of the business men, especially the high up ones. An IT industry based on services would prove to be more efficient, cheaper, secure, provide more jobs, and many other reasons. It will take the money out of the pockets of all those rich executives and put it into hard working IT professionals. With open source code being the norm, the quality of code will only improve. With so many IT professionals being able to see the code, the amount of fixes and improvements will increase dramatically. Hardware vendors such as Dell, IBM, HP, etc. will provide not only hardware, but a distribution of Linux or BSD or maybe even Windows (if goes open and can be fixed up) or others. With it they could provide support for those who need it or simply point them to a business in their local area that provide support services. How much support does MS provide? Also, in the world of services, it isn't about intellectual property, but credibility.
There really isn't anything new in this article that hasn't been said before. He at least puts up a basic outline of some of the more popular games out there and the most used cheats. If you want more in depth articles covering the topic then check out the various websites affiliated with the game such as the official site, fan sites, anti-cheat sites, and various gaming sites. Good read none-the-less for those not familiar with game cheats.
Your still viewing and treating ideas the same way as property. That, my friend, is blind. Ideas do not equal physical property. Do a search on google for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" click the link and read chapter 3. It is long, but you'll be more informed having read that.
"Drained our corporate resources (bandwidth, lost productivity)" So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry. Downloading music is not stealing. Please for the sake of humanity do some reading. It is copyright infringement. Stealing does not relate to copying. It is up to companies to stop the employees from abusing the bandwidth anyway.
"Drained BILLIONS of dollars out of our economy" Ok, you can look at it that way or you can see it in a more economical sense. Music is a resoure, an infinite one at that. Finding ways to get that music to everyone cheaper, faster, and with better quality means more. Using a rent seeking behavior like the recording industry is doing does not in any way improve our economy. People will always create music, with or without copyright. People will always get paid for music (but not as a product on a piece of plastic). Instead, musicians perform (concerts, weddings, parties, etc.), are DJ's, teach music, etc.
"Caused the spawning of underground networks that are undoubtably being used by terrorists cells as well as anti-corporate music leeching anarchists. "
Where did you come up with this? Terrorists need music downloading networks to communicate? Anarchists? What do they have to do with music besides the fact that they will always be breaking some sort of law?
You can't stop this phenomenon, but you can stop real crime. Downloading isn't a crime. Rent seeking behavior by the RIAA should be.
Oops, guess I was wrong. I knew there was some larger range Bluetooth, but completely unaware of any Bluetooth devices related to directly connecting to the internet. Btw, could you point me to a link for some of this info. It seems to be hard to find good info on Bluetooth.
Slashdot Mirror
This is by far one of the biggest myths of patents. Google "Brian Martin Intellectual Property" and read his paper.
"So why didn't they find it first?"
There are many reasons you can be wrong here. They most likely were the ones to find it first. Now the reason a company has a patent on it brings me to my next series of probabilities (which you would know are common if you have ever done reading on the subject). The company could have given the Uni. some funding with attached strings, such as the corp. gaining "IP" rights to all the research in question. Second, Uni's do basic research, which is of utmost importance. The company then simply takes that research and finds a way to apply it to medicine that they can sell. Third, legal issues (which can get complicated) can end up with the corp owning the "IP".
""chicken and egg" problem "
Somehow nature didn't have too much of a problem creating that chicken. It seems the problem is where we try and understand which came first. Assuming that companies won't fund research because they can no longer own "IP" is ignorant.
To assume that people won't study science because one day they won't "own" their ideas, is absurd.
"There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame."
Why is it a shame? I think it is a shame many keep insisting "IP" is good and that it just needs some changes (yet keep repeating the same things without no real solution). I think it is similar to saying "slavery is good it just needs some changes." Those that tie "IP" with money look at IP as good, just as those that tied slavery with money saw it as good. Don't include money in the equation and try and understand "IP", now after you have a good understanding about "IP" without money involved, put money back into the equation. You would be amazed at what you learn. I think it is a shame people don't even consider what it would be like without "IP". Instead, everyone just makes the immediate assumption that without "IP" our economy is doomed to fail, that creativity will cease to exist, and no more new technology will be created.
How often do you read/think/question the subject of "IP"? I have been doing that since my Freshmen year in high school. I am now a sophomore in college. I've read many sources on the subject, thought about it almost every single day (seriously, although not as much this past year), and questioned many aspects of it. Please do some reading on the other perspective. Imagine how things would go without IP. Most important, don't make assumptions.
It has to do with more than just WASTE. He stated that the company controls what he does and that coding is a form of free expression to him. He basically doesn't want the company to control his free expression. WASTE is just one example.
"I don't think the biggest threat to the MPAA is independent content producers, I really don't. "
There are millions of artists, yet the RIAA represents a very small fraction. Second, technology is making it much easier for an independent artist to record their work and distribute it. Technology is helping independent artists and one day even video creation will be at the point that creative individuals will be able to produce works that could be hard to distinguish from high expense Hollywood films. Why does the RIAA exist? The name says it all. If other authorities took control of distribution or a more independent distribution of music and video over the internet by individuals or many small to medium businesses was to happen it would spell doom for the RIAA and MPAA.
Independent artists are RIAA's and MPAA's biggest threats. How would they control the independents without such a grasp on distribution.
"Local music has been performed for far longer than the RIAA has been in existence, and has had no detrimental effect to that organization..."
The reason for this goes back to the history of recording. Technology is changing all this.
"in fact, given the current trends in popular culture and recent FCC decisions, the RIAA will probably be stronger than ever"
Legally they can make themselves as strong as they want. It won't stop piracy or independent artists. Music distribution is changing. Laws never stopped the U.S. from going independent, nor will it stop the artists.
I just scanned your post really quickly and the last sentence caught my eye.
"They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think they were losing money."
They spend the money because they would like more of it. Losing money, no. If someone doesn't buy something of theirs, they don't lose money. They simply don't make any. Too many people on slashdot don't understand what "lose" means. Businesses don't lose money if someone doesn't buy from them, THEY JUST DON'T MAKE MONEY. Thank you.
I'm lost on what you are saying. I didn't mention religion. Religion and ethics are not one and the same.
You pretty much got it right about short and long term economic insight. I didn't really get to the point on that one for some strange reason. Sometimes my thoughts are all there (so many), but when it comes time to write I can't put it down well. Thoughts are like webs and sentences are like strings. I have trouble getting my web of thoughts into strings many times.
"Please, define "positive"."
Things that can be considered ethical. Ethics is not a very debating topic, unless you get into details. So when I mean positive, obvious things like respect, don't murder/cheat/steal/etc. are things that come to mind. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my statement. I do my best to define vague terms, but they slip sometimes.
I'm talking about an ethical positive. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
I've noticed posts already criticising the article. Shame on them. They all cry about copy protection, then when real good material is presented they throw insults at it. This article is about the ethics of copy protection, not about money. There is too much speak of money when it comes to issues such as these. Too many fail to realize that money should not be the priority. Money can not and should not answer all questions. If you applied this reasoning to everything, then you would be supporting slavery, murder, terrorism, and many other bad things. For example, if I dodged the entire issue of human rights and when straight to money talk, then I could show slavery was necessary. I don't believe in slavery though, and I'm sure most here don't either. Yet, when you speak in terms of money, many evils prevail. There isn't any clear violation of ethics when it comes to copy protection, because when anyone talks about it, it comes down to money almost everytime. Ever take money out of the picture when it comes to issues such as these? You'll be surprised at what you find. In fact, slavery was bad economically no matter how it seemed when spoken in terms of money. This was not evident to those who owned slaves. Equality is more powerful than anyone can imagine. The closer we have come to it, the more prosperous we have become. Copy protection is something those that own IP believe in and those who aren't educated well enough on the subject. Many will disagree with me, but imagine this. Those that said the world was round, the ones that said there was no devil inside the insane, or the ones against slavery were considered crazy themselves at the time. Today we call many of these people attempting to prevent more IP protection and possibly turn it around communists, hippies, or simply people who want everything for free. I guess the world is flat after all.
"Great truths don't need daily reinforcement."
Unfortunately, the problem becomes when people don't really understand the "Great truths" and instead have a daily reinforcement of things like racism. That is how cults attempt to maintain their power over all the members. If your fed a daily dose of a negative and you don't know any better, then there is a very good change you will believe it. There are a lot of people out there that have very akward beliefs and over time some do get a lot worse. I've met quite a few people over the years that had strange beliefs (cult like beliefs) and you would be surprised how normal they seemed til you got to know them. Religions do the same as the cults except they reinforce positives. Then there is the problem that reinforcement does little to nothing to help free thought or creativity. Not enough people question what they are told to believe. I do agree with your statements. Whether it takes reinforcement for people to realise what is meant by the "Great truths" is a matter of discussion. I believe it depends on a lot of factors.
I'm not experienced enough in programming just yet to really understand the answer to this question so please let me know what you think. Is it possible with all the lines of code in both Linux and the UNIX code they are comparing that there would be similar code due to basic methods of programming? Could someone have just simply coded some Linux kernel code that matches that in UNIX without ever seeing the UNIX code?
It only makes sense that there aren't that many different ways to do one thing well at times. So to have something almost identical would seem feesable. Then again, if it is almost identical and SCO wants to, they could do slight modification of their code to look exactly like the code in Linux to attempt to prove something. If they get caught, which is possible if the code in question was written by a well known Linux programmer that has no ties with UNIX, then they are totally screwed.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do question if Microsoft is somehow behind this. The entire attack, the speeches, the letters, the press, all seem to have a pattern of FUD and various legal methods to destroy Linux. If this is true, it won't matter anyway. Linux will never fail because of its nature.
This is exactly the book I was going to recommend. It has to do with AI (swarm AI), nanotechnology, and programming (sort of). I'm not a fiction reader. The book just happened to be sitting on a shelf at work and I have time to read where I work (projection booth), so I read it. I have to say it is a good read though. I also happened to read 1984 at work as well, also a good read.
Maybe this is the big bag theory. Some creatures way back before us and before the big bang accidently annihilated themselves, thus causing life to recycle. (Just a crazy thought)
Also, maybe to be safe they could do this in space. Or are the machines/devices/etc. too large to send into space?
It didn't literally question anything. It is more like a story put out that causes one to question their own beliefs, how it applies to our current views, or just certain details in the movie that gave some insight into something. For example, when both the oracle and the architect spoke they spoke of everything like it was all computer science. Just thinking about how one day we may be able to model our reality to a degree in a computer environment makes you think. There is also the whole issue about the war. It is clear that the war is not simply man vs machine. Everyone is looking for the truth, but you can never tell what the truth is. Everyone has their own view of what is real and what isn't. Then there is the question of who is telling their side of beliefs and who is simply lying to promote an outcome or maybe some other purpose. It also gets into AI in an indirect way. For example, Agent Smith replicates himself and wants to destroy Neo. Has he taken on a virus like behavior? Is this something software may one day do? Then you get into wondering about the correlation between software and biological life forms. I could go on, but I'm sure you can think of your own questions. There is so much to learn by simply questioning everything we know. Hence my sig.
I agree with you, you should have been instantly modded down. Too bad it didn't happen.
I already see some have replied to your post. So I'll just add one thing. Too many people were turned off from the movie because they simply did not understand it. It began asking many questions and throwing ideas out that one had to really think about. It really disappoints me that people are turned off from thinking once in a while. If all you expected from the movie was action, you got it. Do not complain about those that found a little more meaning to the movie than just some kicks and bullets.
Forgot to mention. That is why Microsoft is using DRM. The DRM is about controlling the music distribution. If you don't pay, you don't play. This gives them a constant flow of money. This all goes back to the question of intellectual property. Something I do not believe in and neither did Thomas Jefferson. Only reason he agreed to it is because at the time it provided a means for distributing ideas which before the communication technology we have today was a good thing. Anyway, I'm going off-topic, sorry. Microsoft is attempting to gain control of music distribution just like everyone else. That is part of the reason why the RIAA is fighting so hard. The top executives at these recording companies do not want to hand over the control of distribution to these technology companies, but want it for themselves. Can MS get part of the share? That is something that will depend upon a lot of factors. It especially depends on what music they get to distribute using the system. DRM is a technology that is doomed to fail in a free world. If someone sold you a car with a device that prevented the car from running after a certain amount of time or if you stopped paying, what would you do? Even worse is the fact that DRM attempts to prevent one from doing what they wish with an intagible item (is item even the right word?). MS is putting a lot of hope on this Orwellian technology. Let us all hope it fails.
"How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?""
It isn't about owning, it's about control.
Remember, intellectual property was never meant as a means for ownership, but a means for control.
Quite true. The ones resisting the change (because they do believe in their model) are many of the business men, especially the high up ones. An IT industry based on services would prove to be more efficient, cheaper, secure, provide more jobs, and many other reasons. It will take the money out of the pockets of all those rich executives and put it into hard working IT professionals. With open source code being the norm, the quality of code will only improve. With so many IT professionals being able to see the code, the amount of fixes and improvements will increase dramatically.
Hardware vendors such as Dell, IBM, HP, etc. will provide not only hardware, but a distribution of Linux or BSD or maybe even Windows (if goes open and can be fixed up) or others. With it they could provide support for those who need it or simply point them to a business in their local area that provide support services. How much support does MS provide?
Also, in the world of services, it isn't about intellectual property, but credibility.
Great! If admitting to making a mistake gets you marked as Flaimbait, then I didn't do it.
There really isn't anything new in this article that hasn't been said before. He at least puts up a basic outline of some of the more popular games out there and the most used cheats. If you want more in depth articles covering the topic then check out the various websites affiliated with the game such as the official site, fan sites, anti-cheat sites, and various gaming sites. Good read none-the-less for those not familiar with game cheats.
Your still viewing and treating ideas the same way as property. That, my friend, is blind. Ideas do not equal physical property. Do a search on google for "Brian Martin Information Liberation" click the link and read chapter 3. It is long, but you'll be more informed having read that.
"Drained our corporate resources (bandwidth, lost productivity)"
So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry. Downloading music is not stealing. Please for the sake of humanity do some reading. It is copyright infringement. Stealing does not relate to copying. It is up to companies to stop the employees from abusing the bandwidth anyway.
"Drained BILLIONS of dollars out of our economy"
Ok, you can look at it that way or you can see it in a more economical sense. Music is a resoure, an infinite one at that. Finding ways to get that music to everyone cheaper, faster, and with better quality means more. Using a rent seeking behavior like the recording industry is doing does not in any way improve our economy. People will always create music, with or without copyright. People will always get paid for music (but not as a product on a piece of plastic). Instead, musicians perform (concerts, weddings, parties, etc.), are DJ's, teach music, etc.
"Caused the spawning of underground networks that are undoubtably being used by terrorists cells as well as anti-corporate music leeching anarchists.
"
Where did you come up with this? Terrorists need music downloading networks to communicate? Anarchists? What do they have to do with music besides the fact that they will always be breaking some sort of law?
You can't stop this phenomenon, but you can stop real crime. Downloading isn't a crime. Rent seeking behavior by the RIAA should be.
Oops, guess I was wrong. I knew there was some larger range Bluetooth, but completely unaware of any Bluetooth devices related to directly connecting to the internet. Btw, could you point me to a link for some of this info. It seems to be hard to find good info on Bluetooth.