you're better off convincing the judge that a monkey in your backyard coincidentally punched in certain 1's and 0's to recreate your 30 gigabyte mp3 collection.
Let's say a person wearing a shirt with an RFID tag walks past the reader.
The reader reads out the ID. If it recognizes it, and it was not paid for, it would be rung up. If it recognizes the ID and it was paid for already, it would be ignored. If it doesn't recognize the ID, it would be ignored.
The only people you would realistically catch is ones that stole from you, and were dumb enough to walk back in.
The economical savings from using RFID tags is efficiency and improved supply-chain flow, and not to hunt down thieves or track down what brand of boxers you wear today.
The RFID tag IDs are useless without the database linking them to actual product items.
WRONG. RFID tag IDs have a namespace hierarchy similar to IPv6. Manufacturer code, product code, serial number. They have an option to use a private namespace with their own mappings, but most likely they won't, since the money saving simply isn't there when you have to rip out the old tags and put new ones in for every warehouse you move to and from.
Secondly, anything that is sold should be marked as such in the store's database. Somebody walking into the store with tagged clothing should not be fingered for shop lifting, since the item shoudl have been marked as sold.
WRONG. It's not economically feasible to keep an opt-out database. The other poster already pointed out how stupid it sounds to have the hundreds of wallmart stores cross reference and link up their opt-op database for eternity.
Furthermore, if I walk out of a pharmacy store carrying Gilette razor blades, doesn't that mean i'll be caught stealing those razor blades if I go to Walmart to pick up some DVDs?
Your two reasons for not worrying about security are flawed. Care to try again?
My bad. We clearly should've hired a wise-ass like you instead, who refuted my concerns with impractical suggestions and wrong facts. Care to send me your resume?
I apologize for the three r's in "overrated" in the subject.
I know it, now CASPIAN and crytome.org is going to breath down my neck.
"How can we trust these people with the keyboard if they can't even type?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.
(Offtopic - Regarding the original quote ("How can we trust these people with securing sensitive consumer information if they can't even secure their own web site?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.), I think Ms. Albrecht is one big fat hypocrite, unless she runs GNU/Linux, uses OpenOffice, and doesn't use ANY Microsoft products, since I don't think she would trust MS either)
(Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the MIT Auto-ID Center.)
All these privacy concerns people bring up, about people tracking you down are really overrrated.
Why?
The stores (walmart and others) have the same concerns. They preferably just want their own scanners to recognize their own products. Why? If an average joe can create a reader that identifies the actual product, what's to stop their competitor from parking a van outside their store with a powerful reader? The last thing a store wants to do is let anyone else knows their inventory levels. They're practically on the same boat.
and why won't they have the incentive to kill the tags when you leave the store? If you're talking about Walmart, people that buy clothes from walmart most likely will go BACK to walmart at some point in the future wearing those clothes. The last thing they need is a line of 100 house-wifes lining up at the customer service center wondering why they were accused of stealing.
And if you don't know the difference between dollars and yen, you have bigger concerns as well:)
I think he does. If 350 billion yen is roughly equal to 3 billion US, and they're halving their costs to 350 billion yen, that means they're spending 6 billion US right now.
You do realise that the RIAA's claims are unproven right?
unproven my ass. I know plenty of people who don't bother with buying albums now that they leech off Kazaa.
stop being so damn paranoid and ask around you. For every person that has bought more albums from sampling music P2P networks, there's another leecher that's getting the newest albums for free off usenet and IRC. there are plenty of slashdot posters that have (implicitly) admitted to pirating music on these P2P topics ("hey, set up a trusted opennap network like what me and my buddies did - that way I know the rips are genuine!")
I don't need the RIAA to tell me they're losing money. Last year my college residence's 10Mbit link was jammed for better part of the year, because of everyone sharing and downloading movies and music. (And yes, the sys admin DID PROVE THAT) Restricting kazaa protocol traffic to only 1MBit did jack squat, because most of the traffic comes from roommates and neighbors downloading off each other's SMB shares.
Let's see - walk out to the store and pay money, or should I just queue up those mp3s and listen to them right away for free? tough question indeed!
Try making that point again when people start suing manufacturers of flawless cars.
Likewise, try supporting the P2P/car manufacturing analogy again when the majority of crimes committed with the car actually causes financial losses similar to copyright infringements...
90% of the cars are used in a crime. Speeding, hit and run, illegal parking, drunk driving...... Speeding is more dangerous than taking a quick "hit" of a new song. Cars kill more people than downloading songs. Don't get me started on polution..
Bullshit. A very small percentage of cars are used almost exclusively for crime. Same can't be said for the majority of traders on P2P networks.
If speeding is such a big deal to you (as emotionally scarring and detrimental to society's wellbeing as you described it), you wouldn't drive over the speeding limit. Or maybe you do care as much, and eventually you'll find a lot of people that agrees with you. Then maybe you'll file a class action lawsuit on car manufacturers. Then maybe it will be posted on slashdot. Then maybe the slashdot posters will jeer and make fun of those filing the lawsuit. rinse, cycle, repeat.
who's the victim when files are illegal traded? the copyright holder. hence it makes sense that the copyright holders are applying pressure on the p2p networks to make it harder to trade copyrighted files.
there's no "one" victim or group that suffers damages from speeding. if there is, you can be sure that they would lobby for devices that enforces speed limits on cars, and if unsuccessful, sue the car manufacturers.
The fact that people ARE sued is the same, however WHO gets sued differs.
Ford and Firestone got a lot of fun from lawsuits when the faulty tires on the Explorers killed a bunch of people.
there's currently no technology available in the market that locks down the speed limit depending on the highway the car is on. if there is, there's no doubt there will be lobbying towards those kind of technology installed on all cars.
But honestly after the RIAA pisses off enough "consumers" don't you think that the lables are going to say, "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't working anymore." "We need to try something different."
I think they are. The record labels are more than impressed at the rollout of iTunes. Once iTunes comes out for windows, or the other legit services cave in and follow a similar "this amount per song, no hassles" business model, you're going to see this a whole new collective level of bargaining power that can make the RIAA listen.
By cutting off the money supply of the RIAA cartel. With no one buying music, they have no money coming in. Their mafia-like racket, which takes advantage of artists, consumers, and retailers will finally be broken.
Not necessarily. First, you can't even guarantee that another "cartel" won't be replacing the RIAA (every industry begins with competition and ends with consolidation). Second, your argument has bee voided since the success of Apple iTMS, which actually makes RIAA money. Now that a successful business model for digital music distribution has been found, it's only a matter of time before other services like pressplay catches on, or when iTunes rolls out for Windows. You won't be able to starve the RIAA.
No more "protection" money for them. The RIAA's failure will be a boon to artists (no longer forced to sign exclusive & insane contracts), consumers (more music, cheaper, while supporting your favorite artists), and retailers. (price-fixing anyone?)
Services that break away from their protection fees like emusic already exists. Their relative lack of success compared to iTMS (again) already proves that their method of distribution is not as viable.
the distribution of physical media is only a small component of promoting an artist. As long as it still takes a lot of money to promote an artist on radio, TV, and print advertisements that requires a huge sum of initial investments, artists will continue to be subjected to contracts that require them to turn over their firstborns. You're better off choking the Clear Channel radio monopoly first by turning off your radio while driving before you aim for the RIAA...
sweetheart, i've seen more trolls than the number of times Vlad has donkey-punched you. It's no rocket science to spot the difference between a troll and a slashbot.
Then they, (or whomever is left) will setup legitimate, non-price fixing channels that "consumers" will actually want to use (ala I-Tunes).
I would like to remind you that "they" (the "cartel") profits from iTune sales as well. Unless you plan to artificially keep iTunes unpopular in order to get the cartel to "crumble", which probably won't be so popular without the long list of copyrighted songs that the cartel holds. Your argument is all very contradicting...
Besides, the idea of unlimited music subscription is already here with services like eMusic. However, I don't see the landslide success coming out of such a business model as you guys are talking about.
btw Most of Project Gutenberg is mirrored on Kazaa, I think that's a pretty good "fair-use" to start with.
No one is doubting that there is legitimate content on Kazaa. However, we all know Project Gutenberg is FAR from being one of the major activities of Kazaa users. (especially when reliable static sources can be easily found)
I don't necessarily agree with how Oppenheim tries to pigeonhole Freenet together with other P2P apps (although he did not explicitly lump them together).
However, I believe his main argument is on how the majority of activity on P2P networks is not on "jokes" or real estate listings. He's mocking the Kazaa/Grokster developers by coming up with the worst excuses for what most users use it for.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think 90% of cars have been used in committing a crime.
Don't tell me your car has never gone over the speed limit!
and last time I checked, speeding is against the law and is still being punished!
let's review the original analogy (which is broken to begin with):
lawsuits are filed against P2P networks by people who are ultimately hurt from their existance (copyright holders).
in the car analogy, the regular speeding that everyone performs does not hurt anyone. In the situations that speeding leads to accidents, lawsuits ARE filed.
If someone dies or loses money WHENEVER someone speeds, lawsuits will definitely FLY.
like-wise, if P2P networks mostly trade files that do not infringe copyright (or somehow compensates the copyright holders in a way they are not "hurt" by it), there would be no lawsuits either.
Wrong... $0.65 goes to the label, $0.35 to Apple for each ~$1.00 song. Probably closer to $0.00 goes to the artist(s) especially if the artist is not huge star.
Wrong... while the amount of money that the artist pockets is minimal, they still get money from it. You said it yourself, "probably closer to $0.00". I would like to remind you that artists definitely get nothing from their songs being illegally traded on kazaa.
(If you would like to bring forth the argument that P2P downloads spur more CD sales, I would also like to remind you that artists get a similar close-to-minimal compensation from CD sales compared to Apple iTMS sales)
Give it up, Mr. Oppenheim. Your days of controlling music distribution are numbered.
This comment makes me sick. How do P2P apps contribute to liberating legitimate music distribution? Or are you simply happy that you can perpetually bask under the anonymity feature that Freenet grants you to trade music/movies illegally?
The Apple iTunes Music Store contributes to new ways of distributing music while compensating the artists. Getting your latest copyright-infringing albums off Kazaa do not.
Oppenheim makes an excellent argument here: "Most of the noninfringing justifications for these networks that I have heard of are totally unrealistic and virtually nonexistent. For example, in Kazaa, they claimed that the system was used to trade jokes. Think about that. How would that work? Would people search for the punch line? Or, I have heard that it is used for posting real estate sales listings. Again, think about it. Would people search for "Main Street in Kansas?" Or, I have heard that the Bible gets distributed on these networks. Apart from the fact that we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited, there are plenty of legitimate sites that distribute the Bible online."
We, the citizens of the Internet, will prevail.
Sure, if prevailing means to continually acquire media that you did not pay for.
The whole point of peer-to-peer is to share files with others. Just like the whole point of a car is to drive it. Let's "roll" with this analogy for a bit:
There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.
My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?
Just think about it...
because the illegal uses of cars is overwhelmingly small compared to the legal uses of cars? (as a form of transportation)
If 90% of the car uses were related to crimes (9 out of 10 cars on a highway are used as getting away from another scene of a crime), you bet the lawsuits would be everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
what retarded logic.
you're better off convincing the judge that a monkey in your backyard coincidentally punched in certain 1's and 0's to recreate your 30 gigabyte mp3 collection.
I wish AOL would fix what they have first before adding new things like this Blogger that others likely do better anyway.
Y'know, if they have more than one programmer, they probably can work on both blogs AND their e-mail system at the same time!
Let's say a person wearing a shirt with an RFID tag walks past the reader.
The reader reads out the ID. If it recognizes it, and it was not paid for, it would be rung up.
If it recognizes the ID and it was paid for already, it would be ignored.
If it doesn't recognize the ID, it would be ignored.
The only people you would realistically catch is ones that stole from you, and were dumb enough to walk back in.
The economical savings from using RFID tags is efficiency and improved supply-chain flow, and not to hunt down thieves or track down what brand of boxers you wear today.
There's really no reason to come up with paranoid fantasies about Big Brother. There are dozens of plausible explanations for the cards.
Bullshit! What government agency do you work for? I just KNOW you were keeping tabs on how many Snickers party-size packs I was buying every week!
The RFID tag IDs are useless without the database linking them to actual product items.
WRONG. RFID tag IDs have a namespace hierarchy similar to IPv6. Manufacturer code, product code, serial number. They have an option to use a private namespace with their own mappings, but most likely they won't, since the money saving simply isn't there when you have to rip out the old tags and put new ones in for every warehouse you move to and from.
Secondly, anything that is sold should be marked as such in the store's database. Somebody walking into the store with tagged clothing should not be fingered for shop lifting, since the item shoudl have been marked as sold.
WRONG. It's not economically feasible to keep an opt-out database. The other poster already pointed out how stupid it sounds to have the hundreds of wallmart stores cross reference and link up their opt-op database for eternity.
Furthermore, if I walk out of a pharmacy store carrying Gilette razor blades, doesn't that mean i'll be caught stealing those razor blades if I go to Walmart to pick up some DVDs?
Your two reasons for not worrying about security are flawed. Care to try again?
My bad. We clearly should've hired a wise-ass like you instead, who refuted my concerns with impractical suggestions and wrong facts. Care to send me your resume?
I apologize for the three r's in "overrated" in the subject.
I know it, now CASPIAN and crytome.org is going to breath down my neck.
"How can we trust these people with the keyboard if they can't even type?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.
(Offtopic - Regarding the original quote ("How can we trust these people with securing sensitive consumer information if they can't even secure their own web site?" asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht.), I think Ms. Albrecht is one big fat hypocrite, unless she runs GNU/Linux, uses OpenOffice, and doesn't use ANY Microsoft products, since I don't think she would trust MS either)
(Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the MIT Auto-ID Center.)
All these privacy concerns people bring up, about people tracking you down are really overrrated.
Why?
The stores (walmart and others) have the same concerns. They preferably just want their own scanners to recognize their own products. Why? If an average joe can create a reader that identifies the actual product, what's to stop their competitor from parking a van outside their store with a powerful reader? The last thing a store wants to do is let anyone else knows their inventory levels. They're practically on the same boat.
and why won't they have the incentive to kill the tags when you leave the store? If you're talking about Walmart, people that buy clothes from walmart most likely will go BACK to walmart at some point in the future wearing those clothes. The last thing they need is a line of 100 house-wifes lining up at the customer service center wondering why they were accused of stealing.
And if you don't know the difference between dollars and yen, you have bigger concerns as well :)
I think he does. If 350 billion yen is roughly equal to 3 billion US, and they're halving their costs to 350 billion yen, that means they're spending 6 billion US right now.
You do realise that the RIAA's claims are unproven right?
unproven my ass. I know plenty of people who don't bother with buying albums now that they leech off Kazaa.
stop being so damn paranoid and ask around you. For every person that has bought more albums from sampling music P2P networks, there's another leecher that's getting the newest albums for free off usenet and IRC. there are plenty of slashdot posters that have (implicitly) admitted to pirating music on these P2P topics ("hey, set up a trusted opennap network like what me and my buddies did - that way I know the rips are genuine!")
I don't need the RIAA to tell me they're losing money. Last year my college residence's 10Mbit link was jammed for better part of the year, because of everyone sharing and downloading movies and music. (And yes, the sys admin DID PROVE THAT) Restricting kazaa protocol traffic to only 1MBit did jack squat, because most of the traffic comes from roommates and neighbors downloading off each other's SMB shares.
Let's see - walk out to the store and pay money, or should I just queue up those mp3s and listen to them right away for free? tough question indeed!
Try making that point again when people start suing manufacturers of flawless cars.
Likewise, try supporting the P2P/car manufacturing analogy again when the majority of crimes committed with the car actually causes financial losses similar to copyright infringements...
No? didn't think so.
90% of the cars are used in a crime. Speeding, hit and run, illegal parking, drunk driving...... Speeding is more dangerous than taking a quick "hit" of a new song. Cars kill more people than downloading songs. Don't get me started on polution..
Bullshit. A very small percentage of cars are used almost exclusively for crime. Same can't be said for the majority of traders on P2P networks.
If speeding is such a big deal to you (as emotionally scarring and detrimental to society's wellbeing as you described it), you wouldn't drive over the speeding limit. Or maybe you do care as much, and eventually you'll find a lot of people that agrees with you. Then maybe you'll file a class action lawsuit on car manufacturers. Then maybe it will be posted on slashdot. Then maybe the slashdot posters will jeer and make fun of those filing the lawsuit. rinse, cycle, repeat.
who's the victim when files are illegal traded? the copyright holder. hence it makes sense that the copyright holders are applying pressure on the p2p networks to make it harder to trade copyrighted files.
there's no "one" victim or group that suffers damages from speeding. if there is, you can be sure that they would lobby for devices that enforces speed limits on cars, and if unsuccessful, sue the car manufacturers.
The fact that people ARE sued is the same, however WHO gets sued differs.
Ford and Firestone got a lot of fun from lawsuits when the faulty tires on the Explorers killed a bunch of people.
there's currently no technology available in the market that locks down the speed limit depending on the highway the car is on. if there is, there's no doubt there will be lobbying towards those kind of technology installed on all cars.
Although when Oregon did propose to install GPS-trackers on cars, a lot of speeding criminals on slashdot are already panicking and protesting. You can imagine the same uproar if Kazaa actually keeps track of what you download and sends it back to their central server...
But honestly after the RIAA pisses off enough "consumers" don't you think that the lables are going to say, "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't working anymore." "We need to try something different."
I think they are. The record labels are more than impressed at the rollout of iTunes. Once iTunes comes out for windows, or the other legit services cave in and follow a similar "this amount per song, no hassles" business model, you're going to see this a whole new collective level of bargaining power that can make the RIAA listen.
By cutting off the money supply of the RIAA cartel. With no one buying music, they have no money coming in. Their mafia-like racket, which takes advantage of artists, consumers, and retailers will finally be broken.
Not necessarily. First, you can't even guarantee that another "cartel" won't be replacing the RIAA (every industry begins with competition and ends with consolidation). Second, your argument has bee voided since the success of Apple iTMS, which actually makes RIAA money. Now that a successful business model for digital music distribution has been found, it's only a matter of time before other services like pressplay catches on, or when iTunes rolls out for Windows. You won't be able to starve the RIAA.
No more "protection" money for them. The RIAA's failure will be a boon to artists (no longer forced to sign exclusive & insane contracts), consumers (more music, cheaper, while supporting your favorite artists), and retailers. (price-fixing anyone?)
Services that break away from their protection fees like emusic already exists. Their relative lack of success compared to iTMS (again) already proves that their method of distribution is not as viable.
the distribution of physical media is only a small component of promoting an artist. As long as it still takes a lot of money to promote an artist on radio, TV, and print advertisements that requires a huge sum of initial investments, artists will continue to be subjected to contracts that require them to turn over their firstborns. You're better off choking the Clear Channel radio monopoly first by turning off your radio while driving before you aim for the RIAA...
sweetheart, i've seen more trolls than the number of times Vlad has donkey-punched you. It's no rocket science to spot the difference between a troll and a slashbot.
YHL. HAND!
Then they, (or whomever is left) will setup legitimate, non-price fixing channels that "consumers" will actually want to use (ala I-Tunes).
I would like to remind you that "they" (the "cartel") profits from iTune sales as well. Unless you plan to artificially keep iTunes unpopular in order to get the cartel to "crumble", which probably won't be so popular without the long list of copyrighted songs that the cartel holds. Your argument is all very contradicting...
Besides, the idea of unlimited music subscription is already here with services like eMusic. However, I don't see the landslide success coming out of such a business model as you guys are talking about.
btw Most of Project Gutenberg is mirrored on Kazaa, I think that's a pretty good "fair-use" to start with.
No one is doubting that there is legitimate content on Kazaa. However, we all know Project Gutenberg is FAR from being one of the major activities of Kazaa users. (especially when reliable static sources can be easily found)
I don't necessarily agree with how Oppenheim tries to pigeonhole Freenet together with other P2P apps (although he did not explicitly lump them together).
However, I believe his main argument is on how the majority of activity on P2P networks is not on "jokes" or real estate listings. He's mocking the Kazaa/Grokster developers by coming up with the worst excuses for what most users use it for.
You mean like speeding?(three nines of all car users perhaps) And yes, the manufacturer knows about it.
my reply (to a similar comment) is here.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think 90% of cars have been used in committing a crime.
Don't tell me your car has never gone over the speed limit!
and last time I checked, speeding is against the law and is still being punished!
let's review the original analogy (which is broken to begin with):
lawsuits are filed against P2P networks by people who are ultimately hurt from their existance (copyright holders).
in the car analogy, the regular speeding that everyone performs does not hurt anyone. In the situations that speeding leads to accidents, lawsuits ARE filed.
If someone dies or loses money WHENEVER someone speeds, lawsuits will definitely FLY.
like-wise, if P2P networks mostly trade files that do not infringe copyright (or somehow compensates the copyright holders in a way they are not "hurt" by it), there would be no lawsuits either.
Wrong... $0.65 goes to the label, $0.35 to Apple for each ~$1.00 song. Probably closer to $0.00 goes to the artist(s) especially if the artist is not huge star.
Wrong... while the amount of money that the artist pockets is minimal, they still get money from it. You said it yourself, "probably closer to $0.00". I would like to remind you that artists definitely get nothing from their songs being illegally traded on kazaa.
(If you would like to bring forth the argument that P2P downloads spur more CD sales, I would also like to remind you that artists get a similar close-to-minimal compensation from CD sales compared to Apple iTMS sales)
Give it up, Mr. Oppenheim. Your days of controlling music distribution are numbered.
This comment makes me sick. How do P2P apps contribute to liberating legitimate music distribution? Or are you simply happy that you can perpetually bask under the anonymity feature that Freenet grants you to trade music/movies illegally?
The Apple iTunes Music Store contributes to new ways of distributing music while compensating the artists. Getting your latest copyright-infringing albums off Kazaa do not.
Oppenheim makes an excellent argument here: "Most of the noninfringing justifications for these networks that I have heard of are totally unrealistic and virtually nonexistent. For example, in Kazaa, they claimed that the system was used to trade jokes. Think about that. How would that work? Would people search for the punch line? Or, I have heard that it is used for posting real estate sales listings. Again, think about it. Would people search for "Main Street in Kansas?" Or, I have heard that the Bible gets distributed on these networks. Apart from the fact that we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited, there are plenty of legitimate sites that distribute the Bible online."
We, the citizens of the Internet, will prevail.
Sure, if prevailing means to continually acquire media that you did not pay for.
The whole point of peer-to-peer is to share files with others. Just like the whole point of a car is to drive it. Let's "roll" with this analogy for a bit:
...
...
There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.
My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?
Just think about it
because the illegal uses of cars is overwhelmingly small compared to the legal uses of cars? (as a form of transportation)
If 90% of the car uses were related to crimes (9 out of 10 cars on a highway are used as getting away from another scene of a crime), you bet the lawsuits would be everywhere.
Just think about it
The options include both 80 and 120GB models, starting at a not-inexpensive $1199, and there's more information via a CNET News article.
not-inexpensive? I know slashdot editors aim for obscurity, but what's wrong with "expensive"?
Price fixing is also illegal.
/. excuse to pirate music? Sad...
So are cartels.
Welcome to the real world where people break the law, and only the poor or unlucky deal with the consequences.
So is this the latest