...has the RIAA actively attacked end users before? I know it has used legal means to shut down sites, but is there really any precedence to base this decision on...
One of the ways ISPs deal with spam is by
blacklisting sources of it and cutting them off as much as they can. IWT is starting a blacklist that is just as legitimate and perfectly targeted:
The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes
the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things
like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable.
Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it
doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces
that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen.
They want to maximize profit by charging different prices in different markets.
And now they're starting to realise that if you only have one product to sell, then you only have one market. I love it: This was such a grass-roots effort that it wasn't organized at all- just people everywhere voting with their wallets. Meanwhile, back at the Capitol, the MPAA is pouring in money trying to stop history.
you're implying that only children should be permitted to be protected from this crap.
No, I said Calling that fair use grants the point that not watching commercials is a theft that is only "legally permissible" if there's a kid in the room.
The judge called that legally permissible "fair use." It has nothing to do with fair use, and calling it that grants a point that only the **AAs in their crack-induced stupor think is valid. It's kind of like when Col. Scheisskoph issued statements that there would be no parade on Sunday- its very implication is far more of an encroachment than the statement itself.
You're entirely right; demonizing is exactly what they're trying to do. Remember: when you download MP3s, you're downloading communism.
It isn't my business model. AOL caught on to the fact that even stupid AOLers hate the pop ups. Their response was to cut down on them. Networks are now faced with the fact that even the Survivor crowd doesn't like commercials. Their response, taking a cue from MS/(RI/MP)AA, is to call their customers thieves and refuse to let them chose how to view content.
I thought it was a low point when MTV viewers chose their own VJ. I hadn't heard they they're choosing network execs from the same talent pool.
...whether specific uses -- such as transferring a TV show to a laptop to watch while traveling or using the commercial skip features to avoid exposing children to commercials -- constitutes a legally permissible ``fair use.''
Apparently only consumers on the suit will answer those questions. Transferring a show to your laptop is fair use. How is skipping commercials fair use?
Calling that fair use grants the point that not watching commercials is a theft that is only "legally permissible" if there's a kid in the room. Going to get more chips during an ad is obviously now theft. If it's only okay if you've got a kid handy, but then you should send the kid to the kitchen and watch the damn ads yourself. That satisfies everyone, according to the judge: the sponsors are seen, you get your food and the innocent little child is protected from the commercials in a legally permissible way.
I believe that the user's free choice is the best standard-making-body it does not matter if you got a certificate or not if your distribution is crap.
That's great for users. We can and do use whatever the hell we want. If it wasn't intended for that use, someone will come up with the right hack.
Certification isn't about users. At least, not about current users. Except maybe non-coders like me. It's about companies. IT geeks can now tell their PHBs that it's certified, which will carry a lot of weight. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the proper response. Linux will seem less of a freestyle, knocked together geek alternative thing, and that's what needs to happen to expand the business market. The desktop market isn't where Linux's growth is going to be for quite some time.
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.
No, you just won't be able to reach Listen4Ever.com from anywhere that goes through these backbone carriers. Carriers. That's an important word here. The RIAA isn't suing a copyright infringing website, they're suing the phone company. These backbone folks are "common carriers," meaning that they are not responsible for what passes over their cables.
An FTP request is an FTP request is an FTP request. If it goes to Listen4Ever.com, goatce.cx or whitehouse.gov, it doesn't matter to them. They've got a really fat pipe that they're trying to keep up. They're not some public library that went and accepted federal money to get on the net and has to put mommyware on their boxen, they're common carriers. Once they start picking and choosing what traffic to allow, they're responsible for all the traffic they carry: terrorists' instructions, gay bashing emails, kiddie porn and auctions of Nazi memorabilia.
The telcos aren't going to let anything take their common carrier protections away from them. I think that the RIAA finally took on the wrong opponent.
One strangely obvious option may be to get a cycling machine which can be adjusted low enough so that you can double it up as a computer chair...
Don't bother trying to lower the bike- just duct tape a keyboard to the handlebars- it's not like you need handlebars anyway. Rigging a mouse pad next to it should only be a couple minutes' work, too. My wife set that up for herself a few years ago and still uses it.
To some extent, they are responding to demands from the RIAA and others.
No, they are the "others" of whom you speak. You know; a monopoly, shoving sup-par content to a captive audience, charging outrageous amounts of money for it and making it increasingly annoying for real customers to use in an effort to prevent piracy, which it doesn't.
MS was annoying its customers with this stuff long before the RIAA did, and long before the MPAA had DVDs to screw with. They also have a lot more money than the **AAs. They are a bigger, though less visible part of the drive to take away our freedoms than anyone else. Have you ever bought a CD or movie with the restrictions of a MS livense?
Wouldn't it be amazing if campaign finance contributions could only come from valid, registered voters?
The way I see it, finance reform only has a chance if congressional seats are apportioned based on the number of "valid, registered voters." Forget the Census; it's irrelevant. Children and the homeless that NYC sends workers throughout the subway system to find are in no way represented by the government. Yes, they need to be counted, but no, they are not voters. Handing out representation with a total disregard to the actual number of voters (theoretically the ones electing someone to represent them) is totally ludicrous. England used to work this way- they called them rotten boroughs.
We have more representatives than we have people to represent. Because they don't have voters to answer to, they only have to represent the corporations that bankroll them. We need to scale the House of Representatives down so they only represent the only constituency that matters: the voters. States that whine "we'll lose representation" are full of crackheads- those seats don't represent them. To those that follow the idea that corporations have the same rights as people, I offer a compromise. I'll let AOL/Time/Warner have one vote. In Atlanta. And all of its shareholders give up their votes to allow the Board of Directors to cast AOL/Time/Warner's single vote. Nothing else would be reform, as it would literally allow people to buy votes. Any takers?
Every time I see something as retarded as this, I want every last moron at the USP&TO taken out back and shot.
Unfortunately, they're not the real problem. We need some real dust-off-the-Constitution kind of IP reform.
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats. In one of the races in my state, one party is running attack ads claiming that 96% of the other candidate's money is coming from out of state. It doesn't matter to me if it's an "I need funding" issue or an "I'm a corporate whore" issue. It's a backwater district in a tiny state, and it's bought and paid for by corporate interests that have no interest in the state, just in how many seats they can buy for their favorite party.
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
Re:After actually READING the article...
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The main subject of the article only had 1 to 5 million bucks...
He started out with investors, who got a lot of money. The money that went to the team got split between the whole team. He didn't do it all the time, having to be subtle. They were just doing it in college- how many actually dropped out or made it a career? I have to stand by the idea that while the money was awesome, it wasn't about the money. Once you have a few million, a shitty little savings account can pay quite nicely. There's greedy and then there's greedy. I wouldn't want to "work" in a casino if I didn't have to, either.
...feel the need to try and rip off the casinos...
Duh- they're hackers, and this is everything from math to social engineering to just plain fun.
What's the reasoning for a bunch of really bright geeks to take on the house (legally) when even the laws are in the house's favor? Because they believe that they can do it. The money's just icing; how they keep score.
From the article. Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores , the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.
It's kind of shaming that Wal Mart, whom we have allowed to take over just about everything, is actually that stupid.
On a related note, I just love the NYT. Today I got to be a government official from American Samoa making less than $20k who subscribes to the Times.
...but the study does not say that humans cause global warming. That may very well be true, but science must be careful to draw inferences from the observations and not go beyond them.
I fully agree. I wasn't trying to claim that 3 days without major flights over one country proved global warming. I wanted to slap everyone who claimed that 3 days wasn't a large enough study to show that we are affecting our environment. It seems that any discussion of man and earth immediately divides into two groups: those who think we're killing the earth and those who think we'll never run out of oil. They're both off base. I think we probably are causing global warming, but I'm not convinced. I am convinced that we're affecting the world, and that's what I was trying to get across. I was just trying to discount the large groups here that can't read a report with open minds; simply hailing it if it fits with their pre-conceived notions and blasting it if it doesn't.
No, that's barking up the wrong tree. It's the condensation seeds that cause this, the gazillions of small soot particles coming out of a kerosene-burning engine.
Remedy? Stop burning hydrocarbons up there. Hydrogen is much better: produces mere water vapour, having no catalytic effect on condensation.
So... Who knows, maybe more research on jet propulsion can end up stopping this.
That's exactly the point. As someone posting anonymously, you should understand the value people place on freedoms. I'm anonymous here, too- just try to email me- you can't.
I want to be able to act freely, to do as I please without cops looking over my shoulder all day, without every store I go to collecting data on me to be used against me by marketers, cops or people who just don't like me. Wanting to live and let live involves accepting the risk that some peoples' actions will be perfectly legal up until they unload a gun in a subway car or a fast food joint.
I'll live with that. The only way you can live a life of perfect safety is pretty damn boring. Government spying and "detaining" doesn't allow any of us much of a life.
That said, my borrowing habits are innocuous enough that I'm having trouble mustering a lot of outrage over this whole business.
They're innocuous right now. Wait until your favorite author publicly supports something unpopular. Wait until these records become even more public; you'll be looking for a job and the interviewer won't like your taste in books. You could get turned down for a mortgage because the bank sees you return books late sometimes.
I don't go to the library- I buy a lot of used books. My borrowing habits are about as innocuous as you can get, not being on their records. I've still got outrage enough to spare. Wake up and muster some yourself.
Public Libraries are _public_ places, owned by the _government_. The government has a right to collect information from the library.
It's not Flamebait; it's Unintelligent.
My town thinks a library is an important thing to have, so we tax ourselves to fund one. I haven't seen any money filtering its way down from Washington to buy our books. Let Ashcroft search for borrowing records and browsing habits in the Library of Congress. That's the library owned by that government. He can stay out of my library, because my town owns it.
Where are you pulling this radar gun thing from?
_However_, when it comes to the FBI demanding book histories from stores like Borders, they can bugger off until they get a warrant.
You actually have less of a leg to stand on with book stores. They don't need a warrant, or even a subpoena. They could just ask. They could just walk in and seize it, claiming it's a terrorist related investigation. You don't own the bookstore, and if you signed up for their card club, you're asking them to collect information on you. It's their data, and they can sell it to anyone they want or give it to the FBI. They could sell it to the FBI. I hope you didn't buy a felafel cookbook, because then you're going to get detained. At least with your local library you can get the town to resist handing the info over to them. Borders probably made money selling you out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is.
Don't read much, eh?
The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable.
Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen.
I think the idea is going to catch on.
Circumventing and overpowering are, alas, illegal now. All we're left with is undermining.
And now they're starting to realise that if you only have one product to sell, then you only have one market. I love it: This was such a grass-roots effort that it wasn't organized at all- just people everywhere voting with their wallets.
Meanwhile, back at the Capitol, the MPAA is pouring in money trying to stop history.
No, I said Calling that fair use grants the point that not watching commercials is a theft that is only "legally permissible" if there's a kid in the room.
The judge called that legally permissible "fair use." It has nothing to do with fair use, and calling it that grants a point that only the **AAs in their crack-induced stupor think is valid. It's kind of like when Col. Scheisskoph issued statements that there would be no parade on Sunday- its very implication is far more of an encroachment than the statement itself.
You're entirely right; demonizing is exactly what they're trying to do. Remember: when you download MP3s, you're downloading communism.
I thought it was a low point when MTV viewers chose their own VJ. I hadn't heard they they're choosing network execs from the same talent pool.
Apparently only consumers on the suit will answer those questions. Transferring a show to your laptop is fair use. How is skipping commercials fair use?
Calling that fair use grants the point that not watching commercials is a theft that is only "legally permissible" if there's a kid in the room. Going to get more chips during an ad is obviously now theft. If it's only okay if you've got a kid handy, but then you should send the kid to the kitchen and watch the damn ads yourself. That satisfies everyone, according to the judge: the sponsors are seen, you get your food and the innocent little child is protected from the commercials in a legally permissible way.
That's great for users. We can and do use whatever the hell we want. If it wasn't intended for that use, someone will come up with the right hack.
Certification isn't about users. At least, not about current users. Except maybe non-coders like me. It's about companies. IT geeks can now tell their PHBs that it's certified, which will carry a lot of weight. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the proper response. Linux will seem less of a freestyle, knocked together geek alternative thing, and that's what needs to happen to expand the business market. The desktop market isn't where Linux's growth is going to be for quite some time.
No, you just won't be able to reach Listen4Ever.com from anywhere that goes through these backbone carriers. Carriers. That's an important word here. The RIAA isn't suing a copyright infringing website, they're suing the phone company. These backbone folks are "common carriers," meaning that they are not responsible for what passes over their cables.
An FTP request is an FTP request is an FTP request. If it goes to Listen4Ever.com, goatce.cx or whitehouse.gov, it doesn't matter to them. They've got a really fat pipe that they're trying to keep up. They're not some public library that went and accepted federal money to get on the net and has to put mommyware on their boxen, they're common carriers. Once they start picking and choosing what traffic to allow, they're responsible for all the traffic they carry: terrorists' instructions, gay bashing emails, kiddie porn and auctions of Nazi memorabilia.
The telcos aren't going to let anything take their common carrier protections away from them. I think that the RIAA finally took on the wrong opponent.
Don't bother trying to lower the bike- just duct tape a keyboard to the handlebars- it's not like you need handlebars anyway. Rigging a mouse pad next to it should only be a couple minutes' work, too. My wife set that up for herself a few years ago and still uses it.
You are. You prefer bad software and don't know how to spell intellect. You're remarkably consistent.
No, they are the "others" of whom you speak. You know; a monopoly, shoving sup-par content to a captive audience, charging outrageous amounts of money for it and making it increasingly annoying for real customers to use in an effort to prevent piracy, which it doesn't.
MS was annoying its customers with this stuff long before the RIAA did, and long before the MPAA had DVDs to screw with. They also have a lot more money than the **AAs. They are a bigger, though less visible part of the drive to take away our freedoms than anyone else. Have you ever bought a CD or movie with the restrictions of a MS livense?
What if the cameras are here? If they're there IRL, they've got to be online, too.
If they cared, they'd find it. I don't think he needs help; he's offering it. You're right- not enough people read YRO articles.
The way I see it, finance reform only has a chance if congressional seats are apportioned based on the number of "valid, registered voters." Forget the Census; it's irrelevant. Children and the homeless that NYC sends workers throughout the subway system to find are in no way represented by the government. Yes, they need to be counted, but no, they are not voters. Handing out representation with a total disregard to the actual number of voters (theoretically the ones electing someone to represent them) is totally ludicrous. England used to work this way- they called them rotten boroughs.
We have more representatives than we have people to represent. Because they don't have voters to answer to, they only have to represent the corporations that bankroll them. We need to scale the House of Representatives down so they only represent the only constituency that matters: the voters. States that whine "we'll lose representation" are full of crackheads- those seats don't represent them. To those that follow the idea that corporations have the same rights as people, I offer a compromise. I'll let AOL/Time/Warner have one vote. In Atlanta. And all of its shareholders give up their votes to allow the Board of Directors to cast AOL/Time/Warner's single vote. Nothing else would be reform, as it would literally allow people to buy votes. Any takers?
Unfortunately, they're not the real problem. We need some real dust-off-the-Constitution kind of IP reform.
Unfortunately, that's not the real problem. We need some real get-the-companies-out-of-politics kind of capmaign finance reform.
Until Disney, the **AAs and normal industry turn our government back over to us, we're going to keep having these outrages shoved down our throats. In one of the races in my state, one party is running attack ads claiming that 96% of the other candidate's money is coming from out of state. It doesn't matter to me if it's an "I need funding" issue or an "I'm a corporate whore" issue. It's a backwater district in a tiny state, and it's bought and paid for by corporate interests that have no interest in the state, just in how many seats they can buy for their favorite party.
We have to fix the government before it can fix anything for us.
He started out with investors, who got a lot of money. The money that went to the team got split between the whole team. He didn't do it all the time, having to be subtle. They were just doing it in college- how many actually dropped out or made it a career? I have to stand by the idea that while the money was awesome, it wasn't about the money. Once you have a few million, a shitty little savings account can pay quite nicely. There's greedy and then there's greedy. I wouldn't want to "work" in a casino if I didn't have to, either.
And tightening security at Logan implies what?
Duh- they're hackers, and this is everything from math to social engineering to just plain fun.
What's the reasoning for a bunch of really bright geeks to take on the house (legally) when even the laws are in the house's favor? Because they believe that they can do it. The money's just icing; how they keep score.
Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores , the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.
It's kind of shaming that Wal Mart, whom we have allowed to take over just about everything, is actually that stupid.
On a related note, I just love the NYT. Today I got to be a government official from American Samoa making less than $20k who subscribes to the Times.
I fully agree. I wasn't trying to claim that 3 days without major flights over one country proved global warming. I wanted to slap everyone who claimed that 3 days wasn't a large enough study to show that we are affecting our environment. It seems that any discussion of man and earth immediately divides into two groups: those who think we're killing the earth and those who think we'll never run out of oil. They're both off base. I think we probably are causing global warming, but I'm not convinced. I am convinced that we're affecting the world, and that's what I was trying to get across. I was just trying to discount the large groups here that can't read a report with open minds; simply hailing it if it fits with their pre-conceived notions and blasting it if it doesn't.
So... Who knows, maybe more research on jet propulsion can end up stopping this.
That's exactly the point. As someone posting anonymously, you should understand the value people place on freedoms. I'm anonymous here, too- just try to email me- you can't.
I want to be able to act freely, to do as I please without cops looking over my shoulder all day, without every store I go to collecting data on me to be used against me by marketers, cops or people who just don't like me. Wanting to live and let live involves accepting the risk that some peoples' actions will be perfectly legal up until they unload a gun in a subway car or a fast food joint.
I'll live with that. The only way you can live a life of perfect safety is pretty damn boring. Government spying and "detaining" doesn't allow any of us much of a life.
They're innocuous right now. Wait until your favorite author publicly supports something unpopular. Wait until these records become even more public; you'll be looking for a job and the interviewer won't like your taste in books. You could get turned down for a mortgage because the bank sees you return books late sometimes.
I don't go to the library- I buy a lot of used books. My borrowing habits are about as innocuous as you can get, not being on their records. I've still got outrage enough to spare. Wake up and muster some yourself.
It's not Flamebait; it's Unintelligent.
My town thinks a library is an important thing to have, so we tax ourselves to fund one. I haven't seen any money filtering its way down from Washington to buy our books. Let Ashcroft search for borrowing records and browsing habits in the Library of Congress. That's the library owned by that government. He can stay out of my library, because my town owns it.
Where are you pulling this radar gun thing from?
_However_, when it comes to the FBI demanding book histories from stores like Borders, they can bugger off until they get a warrant.
You actually have less of a leg to stand on with book stores. They don't need a warrant, or even a subpoena. They could just ask. They could just walk in and seize it, claiming it's a terrorist related investigation. You don't own the bookstore, and if you signed up for their card club, you're asking them to collect information on you. It's their data, and they can sell it to anyone they want or give it to the FBI. They could sell it to the FBI. I hope you didn't buy a felafel cookbook, because then you're going to get detained. At least with your local library you can get the town to resist handing the info over to them. Borders probably made money selling you out.