What makes this interesting is that the spammer will be in much greater legal peril for compromising so many machines than anything related to the actual spam.
so it seems that the spammer was either very good or very stupid. I'd guess good, but, whatever. Either way, he was pissed, and angry people make more mistakes.
Good luck finding the guy, I'm curious to see what comes of this. I dunno if they've contacted the feds, but I'm sure they're curious anyway.
and if you take the amount of money Napster has made, muliply that by the amount of money that everyone using it has paid, take that to the power of the amount of money that everyone using it has made, and throw in $20.
You get $20.
It's not about money. Piracy is about money. It's not about piracy.
It's about control of information. Information is power. It's about power. It's about power.
but as an important catalyst whose death was, sadly, inevitable.
say you need a little bit of copper to allow the lightning to reach the flux capacitor. The only thing you have around is an old warn penny with a big hack out of it. You use the penny, the ligtning hits the capcitotor, the future and past become as one. But, the penny, with the hack, is burned up in the vast power that has flown through it.
You may not like what I do, but you're being unfair to attribute all of this to me, directly or indirectly.
Not all of it, and even the big in my original post was a bit off.
We're doing it for fun and a challenge, they're doing it because they have nothing better to do than fuck things up.
The problem comes from the fact that they look like the same thing. You take a relatively benign annoying pastime, make it competitive, and someone takes it too far. Anytime that something gets even the hint of organization or recognition, people will try to jump to the head of the class.
"Oh sure, you wrote some great trolls and fooled some folk, but I wrote a script that shutdown k5."
When you've gone through the trouble to put together a HOWTO, even in jest, it helps the thing grow.
Regardless, like the Simpson's episode, the K5 witch hunt will probably result in finding some kid with a head in a bag, begging for his life, screaming "i just wanted you to like me."
(note: I am only associating trolls and spamming because that's what I see here everyday. Spams of trolls. And the only reason I picked you is because you are a known troll and the first one I came across. I'm a big fan of pointing out people's hypocrisies, a point FOR trolling, but then again I hate trying to discuss something when you know at least person talking is just bullshitin' to piss you off) --
for all your funny shit spiralx, you're a big part of this problem. You convince a couple people that trolling is cool and all of a sudden someone with less sense steps over the line.
Think Simpson's episode where Bart cuts off the head of the town founder trying to impress his "bad-ass" friends.
Hell, isn't there an open-source trolling script running around someplace. I've seen it used here, it couldn't be that hard to adapt to k5. Anyway, this whole thing sucks.
Personally I think Rusty and crew should take a week break or so and then turn the shit back on. The kiddie will probably have found some good pr0n and moved on by then. Plus it'll give them a well-deserved breather.
It's about time that source code was given the legal protection of being self-expression - almost everything else creative is given this distinction so this sounds like it will finally give source code the recognition it deserves.
. Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, released on May 6, 1999, states that software source code is a language worthy of First Amendment protection.
If you like it you pay for it, if not then you put it back...
But that's not how he worded the license. He's not saying, "if you like it, pay more to keep seeing it." He's saying, "if you dl it, you need to pay". That's the only caveat I have with the "license".
Let's look at it from the horses mouth....(sorry for you cut'n paste whiners)
What You Promise
1. To pay for each installment of The Plant, and to pay each time you download it. Look at it this way: you couldn't go into a bookstore and say, "I bought a copy of The Street Lawyer in here yesterday, so give me four more for free today." Get it?
It looks to me like he's saying, "if you download it, you agree to pay for it" and NOT "if you download it and like it, pay for it."
So, in respect of his wishes, and my recent experience, it's not worth it for me to download.
Personally, I think the first chapter should be free, and the second becomes the test. But, given the fact that he is a VERY successful author, he can stand on his previous work as a preview.
(if it means anything I have read pretty much every stephen king book around, but lately they have sucked and the The Girl Who Should Have Died a Grisly Death With Tom Gordon in the Woods was the final straw....until the next Dark Tower book comes out) --
In fact, I brashly predict that the sudden freeing of the artist -- the ability for anyone with interest to form an effective distribution network -- will spark a great surge forward in creativity.
I totally agree with this one. The thing that Stephen King has done is bring the real point out. Morals. I didn't download the book, and I'm a big stephen king fan. I didn't, cause the last book of his that I read (The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon) sucked ass. The way he set up the license is awesome. It's him, asking you to be moral. Directly. That's the power it will take for this to work. That's why I didn't dl the book, because I didn't want to pay for it, and the last stuff he's written is shit.
Until I hear that this story kicks ass, it's not worth my time. The only way he can ask for such a license up front is because he is probably the most popular American author on the planet. Someone else would have to put a bit upfront, maybe a chapter. Then, for the second and more they could ask for $.25 to continue the game.
Anyway, my point: it will take moral consumers for this type of publishing to work. He's taking a small risk (the dude make $65,000,000,000 last year), but it's a worthwhile experiment.
Because the entertainment industry is filled with people like the guy who originally said "Artists will have no incentive to create. ". How much do you want to bet that this guy has never created anything in his life?
I think the corporate mentality of "there will be no creation without us" is the thing most likely to lead to a stagnation of culture. It's like Edgar Bronfman's example of the decimation of the buffalo as a reason for draconian IP laws. click the.sig for an on-topic rant.
The entertainment industry is filled with liars and cheats, and this is from the mouth of a musician
In fact, nobody is being forced to do anything in the production, sale or purchase of Britney Spears, N'Sync, Star Wars: Episode 2 or any other product of the entertainment industry that we may or may not enjoy.
Of course not. The problem comes when the people who create such things take legal steps that limit the options to easily find alternatives to mass produced crap. Or curtail the right to view what has been legally purchased.
The motivation that the origianl CEO was talking about is not one of creation, but of promotion. If they see the top end profit margins slipping, it will not be worth the businesmen's time to continue promoting it. It is only by limiting competition and entertainment options that they have been able to sustain continuously growing profits.
Oh, and extending copyright everytime something that has "brand" value to them should have entered the public domain. Think how well the public could be served for TV/film/music media if the copyright expired after 20 years?
Really, think about it for a second. If nothing sparks in your head, think about Gnunapnet alongside all that public domain content. Think about the original purpose of copyright. Copyright is worth defending, but not, IMHO, in its present "crack copy protection, go to jail" incarnation.
Disney hasn't set the bar too high, they've just associated "animation" with "cute, huggable, characters." Personally, I think Titan A.E. (which I liked) would have been much better is they had gone with a bit more hard-core style. Bluth has always played second fiddle to Disney, when he should have been playing a guitar.
Gimme some feature length animation with a Spawn (HBO) style animation and adult themes done with quality and you'll have a winner. --
When you're an 800lb gorilla, you have to look where you are sitting. And a "pure" accident that hoses a competitor is sketchy at best. Was Dr. Dos a "pure accident"? When something was done in the past with malicious intent, it's hard to excuse a future action from the same company that looks the same ojectively. As I'm sure you know, it only takes a line or two of code to redirect a competitors mail, or crash a box if it's trying to run the "wrong" software. That's 15 minutes from one person, coding in a dark hall by candleight (At least that's how it is in my blue-tinted nightmares).
On Product Quality
Yup. M$ has NO reason to sell quality goods. They have massive reason to sell shoddy programs. Which product is going to make more money for a monopoly: the one that works perfect everytime or the one that you have to upgrade every two years and it *still* won't work right.
As to the link, it is a perfect example of corporate propoganda, or are you going to assert that you just stumbled across it, and thought, wow, that's just like the DOJ jumping on Billy for being so dang innovative. You've got a hard-core PR dept there, don't believe the hype.
In all seriousness, which this post isn't, GNU and Linux are a direct response to this thinking. When you try and hide all your goodies and sell them like "real" products, this is the inevitable road you walk down. Those that follow the path deserve it. And when they wake up and realize that they've been following an illusion, they get right pissed. --
this follows the pleasure principle. We do something, it feels good, we do it again, same feeling but lesser. Music is a drug like any other. The more you are exposed to it, the more you want of it. The more you use it, the more you appreciate it. The more you appreciate it, the more you are willing to pay for it. And if you really like it, you can never get enough. Infinite demand, matches the infinite supply of digital music, added value makes the cash. Buying a CD is added value. But control is a difficult thing to give up, so we gets lots of lawsuits.
One of my favorite Homer quotes, in talking about our consumeristic culture (he was refering to free cookies)
"Oh I see, first you get us addicted, then you jack up the price."
With MP3, it's about getting people addicted, and then realizing that there are purer forms of digital crack out there, much of it on CD.
of course techonology could chagne this...again...
I'm not saying that this is definitely untrue, but it is important to understand that this is a survey that relies on what people say they do, not what they actually did. Those two different things can be very different.
Congrats, you've just re-iterated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Marketing. This affects ALL studies. And even those that rely on real-world numbers and behaviours miss the "why". You can have position (action) or velocity (explanation), but both are tough to pin down. It's a very rough metaphor.
One important thing to note:
Jupiter = Internet research firm.
Soundscan = music sales tracking company.
Yea, the Internet may very well be taking sales away from college area record stores, but, IMHO, that's more because the students are buying online rather than not buying at all. The other growth statistics for the record industry support this theory (i.e. growth continues)
Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.
This makes sense, and supports the idea that the RIAA isn't worried about piracy, but about competition (with non-RIAA music).
umm, the market doesn't seem to think so. People (i.e. me) would much prefer to peruse pr0n from the comfort of their homes rather than some seedy cum-stained shack on the outskirts of town. You could probably blame our puritannical "won't somebody think to keep the children ignorant" roots for that, if you really wanted to.
I don't think I've ever been to a town that has a triving "red light district", but I've been there on the Net.
Oh and uh, I'm the one who wrote that first reply in case you couldn't tell.
it's usually not that easy to tell one ranting idiot from the next, that's why i login.
How is it that you've decided to let the industry that controls the creation of an artifact, define the legal definition of it's use? This "piracy" shit is coming straight from their mouths, and it has only one goal. It's FUD, and you know it. I'd like you site an example where more exposure to artistic endeavors has decreased the demand for such things. You even said yourself MP3 sounds like shit. You also said that real music fans will still buy albums (and I heartily agree). So how do you defend the idea that a limitless resource should be made limited solely because the people who make money off of it think that should be so?
Even the writer of the DMCA thinks it is crap now. He had no idea how to create a viable digital marketplace and these trade industry groups knew it. So they pushed their agenda, which now seems obvious "sue every new form of competition to oblivion over the laws we wrote two years ago."
Slashdot Mirror
K5 constantly puts up things like "at a certain other discussion site" and so forth.
/., and not too long ago.
I think it was (un)officially TOS (that other site), but it was firmly tounge through cheek. No animosity that I noticed, ever.
I liked the story moderation, even though I got voted down a couple times.
The last I saw there were several stories with nearly 100 posts. I remember that being a rarity on
--
What makes this interesting is that the spammer will be in much greater legal peril for compromising so many machines than anything related to the actual spam.
so it seems that the spammer was either very good or very stupid. I'd guess good, but, whatever. Either way, he was pissed, and angry people make more mistakes.
Good luck finding the guy, I'm curious to see what comes of this. I dunno if they've contacted the feds, but I'm sure they're curious anyway.
--
The part I'm afraid of is that they will start censoring traffic at the server level.
Hmmm, FBI sets up carnivores. FBI enforces copyright (or so the videos I rent tell me). Carnivores eat whatever they are programmed to.
Conspiracy theory? I think, no.
--
and if you take the amount of money Napster has made, muliply that by the amount of money that everyone using it has paid, take that to the power of the amount of money that everyone using it has made, and throw in $20.
You get $20.
It's not about money. Piracy is about money. It's not about piracy.
It's about control of information. Information is power. It's about power. It's about power.
Who's got the power?
--
but as an important catalyst whose death was, sadly, inevitable.
:-)
say you need a little bit of copper to allow the lightning to reach the flux capacitor. The only thing you have around is an old warn penny with a big hack out of it. You use the penny, the ligtning hits the capcitotor, the future and past become as one. But, the penny, with the hack, is burned up in the vast power that has flown through it.
Thus, the bad penny metaphor holds.
--
but now that they've had a taste of the forbidden fruit, they'll find new ways to hunt.
And it'll piss off a whole bunch of people who just might write their congressmen...
--
You may not like what I do, but you're being unfair to attribute all of this to me, directly or indirectly.
Not all of it, and even the big in my original post was a bit off.
We're doing it for fun and a challenge, they're doing it because they have nothing better to do than fuck things up.
The problem comes from the fact that they look like the same thing. You take a relatively benign annoying pastime, make it competitive, and someone takes it too far. Anytime that something gets even the hint of organization or recognition, people will try to jump to the head of the class.
"Oh sure, you wrote some great trolls and fooled some folk, but I wrote a script that shutdown k5."
When you've gone through the trouble to put together a HOWTO, even in jest, it helps the thing grow.
Regardless, like the Simpson's episode, the K5 witch hunt will probably result in finding some kid with a head in a bag, begging for his life, screaming "i just wanted you to like me."
(note: I am only associating trolls and spamming because that's what I see here everyday. Spams of trolls. And the only reason I picked you is because you are a known troll and the first one I came across. I'm a big fan of pointing out people's hypocrisies, a point FOR trolling, but then again I hate trying to discuss something when you know at least person talking is just bullshitin' to piss you off)
--
for all your funny shit spiralx, you're a big part of this problem. You convince a couple people that trolling is cool and all of a sudden someone with less sense steps over the line.
Think Simpson's episode where Bart cuts off the head of the town founder trying to impress his "bad-ass" friends.
Hell, isn't there an open-source trolling script running around someplace. I've seen it used here, it couldn't be that hard to adapt to k5. Anyway, this whole thing sucks.
Personally I think Rusty and crew should take a week break or so and then turn the shit back on. The kiddie will probably have found some good pr0n and moved on by then. Plus it'll give them a well-deserved breather.
--
It's about time that source code was given the legal protection of being self-expression - almost everything else creative is given this distinction so this sounds like it will finally give source code the recognition it deserves.
That already happended
for the lazy...
. Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, released on May 6, 1999, states that software source code is a language worthy of First Amendment protection.
and a second source for effect.
--
yerdaddy is right.
wait a sec...who's yerdaddy?
aaahhh yeaaaah, a truck full a puddin'
--
Who's gonna belive a writer who appears to use his forum as a self-edification tool?
ha ha Ha hahhaha, HAHAH,hahah,ahahahha, MMWUWauauHSHAHAHH!!!
belive...man, that's funny.
--
if you take that formula for Amazon. Apply it to every book in their catalog...it almost justifies thier stock price.
--
If you like it you pay for it, if not then you put it back...
But that's not how he worded the license. He's not saying, "if you like it, pay more to keep seeing it." He's saying, "if you dl it, you need to pay". That's the only caveat I have with the "license".
Let's look at it from the horses mouth....(sorry for you cut'n paste whiners)
What You Promise
1. To pay for each installment of The Plant, and to pay each time you download it. Look at it this way: you couldn't go into a bookstore and say, "I bought a copy of The Street Lawyer in here yesterday, so give me four more for free today." Get it?
It looks to me like he's saying, "if you download it, you agree to pay for it" and NOT "if you download it and like it, pay for it."
So, in respect of his wishes, and my recent experience, it's not worth it for me to download.
Personally, I think the first chapter should be free, and the second becomes the test. But, given the fact that he is a VERY successful author, he can stand on his previous work as a preview.
(if it means anything I have read pretty much every stephen king book around, but lately they have sucked and the The Girl Who Should Have Died a Grisly Death With Tom Gordon in the Woods was the final straw....until the next Dark Tower book comes out)
--
In fact, I brashly predict that the sudden freeing of the artist -- the ability for anyone with interest to form an effective distribution network -- will spark a great surge forward in creativity.
I totally agree with this one. The thing that Stephen King has done is bring the real point out. Morals. I didn't download the book, and I'm a big stephen king fan. I didn't, cause the last book of his that I read (The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon) sucked ass. The way he set up the license is awesome. It's him, asking you to be moral. Directly. That's the power it will take for this to work. That's why I didn't dl the book, because I didn't want to pay for it, and the last stuff he's written is shit.
Until I hear that this story kicks ass, it's not worth my time. The only way he can ask for such a license up front is because he is probably the most popular American author on the planet. Someone else would have to put a bit upfront, maybe a chapter. Then, for the second and more they could ask for $.25 to continue the game.
Anyway, my point: it will take moral consumers for this type of publishing to work. He's taking a small risk (the dude make $65,000,000,000 last year), but it's a worthwhile experiment.
--
Because the entertainment industry is filled with people like the guy who originally said "Artists will have no incentive to create. ". How much do you want to bet that this guy has never created anything in his life?
.sig for an on-topic rant.
;-)
I think the corporate mentality of "there will be no creation without us" is the thing most likely to lead to a stagnation of culture. It's like Edgar Bronfman's example of the decimation of the buffalo as a reason for draconian IP laws. click the
The entertainment industry is filled with liars and cheats, and this is from the mouth of a musician
But that's why it's so entertaining.
--
In fact, nobody is being forced to do anything in the production, sale or purchase of Britney Spears, N'Sync, Star Wars: Episode 2 or any other product of the entertainment industry that we may or may not enjoy.
Of course not. The problem comes when the people who create such things take legal steps that limit the options to easily find alternatives to mass produced crap. Or curtail the right to view what has been legally purchased.
The motivation that the origianl CEO was talking about is not one of creation, but of promotion. If they see the top end profit margins slipping, it will not be worth the businesmen's time to continue promoting it. It is only by limiting competition and entertainment options that they have been able to sustain continuously growing profits.
Oh, and extending copyright everytime something that has "brand" value to them should have entered the public domain. Think how well the public could be served for TV/film/music media if the copyright expired after 20 years?
Really, think about it for a second. If nothing sparks in your head, think about Gnunapnet alongside all that public domain content. Think about the original purpose of copyright. Copyright is worth defending, but not, IMHO, in its present "crack copy protection, go to jail" incarnation.
--
Having money doesn't necessarily mean you will win, but not having it means you don't even get to fight.
I think that's what he meant. And if you follow the logic, No money = No justice, is where you end up.
--
Disney hasn't set the bar too high, they've just associated "animation" with "cute, huggable, characters." Personally, I think Titan A.E. (which I liked) would have been much better is they had gone with a bit more hard-core style. Bluth has always played second fiddle to Disney, when he should have been playing a guitar.
Gimme some feature length animation with a Spawn (HBO) style animation and adult themes done with quality and you'll have a winner.
--
On evilness
When you're an 800lb gorilla, you have to look where you are sitting. And a "pure" accident that hoses a competitor is sketchy at best. Was Dr. Dos a "pure accident"? When something was done in the past with malicious intent, it's hard to excuse a future action from the same company that looks the same ojectively. As I'm sure you know, it only takes a line or two of code to redirect a competitors mail, or crash a box if it's trying to run the "wrong" software. That's 15 minutes from one person, coding in a dark hall by candleight (At least that's how it is in my blue-tinted nightmares).
On Product Quality
Yup. M$ has NO reason to sell quality goods. They have massive reason to sell shoddy programs. Which product is going to make more money for a monopoly: the one that works perfect everytime or the one that you have to upgrade every two years and it *still* won't work right.
As to the link, it is a perfect example of corporate propoganda, or are you going to assert that you just stumbled across it, and thought, wow, that's just like the DOJ jumping on Billy for being so dang innovative. You've got a hard-core PR dept there, don't believe the hype.
In all seriousness, which this post isn't, GNU and Linux are a direct response to this thinking. When you try and hide all your goodies and sell them like "real" products, this is the inevitable road you walk down. Those that follow the path deserve it. And when they wake up and realize that they've been following an illusion, they get right pissed.
--
If you use it, apps will come.
--
of course I'm good for it Tony, you know me, our kids go to school together. I'll get it to you on short time, no prob.
Hi Tony. Yea, I'm a little short, all tapped out. I should have it to you soon.
Heya Tony. What?! *bam* *smack* *pummel*
*sobbing*
The Sopranos rocks.
And I loved Tony's response to learning his kid had discovered existentialism.
"Fuckin' Internet."
:-)
--
this follows the pleasure principle. We do something, it feels good, we do it again, same feeling but lesser. Music is a drug like any other. The more you are exposed to it, the more you want of it. The more you use it, the more you appreciate it. The more you appreciate it, the more you are willing to pay for it. And if you really like it, you can never get enough. Infinite demand, matches the infinite supply of digital music, added value makes the cash. Buying a CD is added value. But control is a difficult thing to give up, so we gets lots of lawsuits.
One of my favorite Homer quotes, in talking about our consumeristic culture (he was refering to free cookies)
"Oh I see, first you get us addicted, then you jack up the price."
With MP3, it's about getting people addicted, and then realizing that there are purer forms of digital crack out there, much of it on CD.
of course techonology could chagne this...again...
--
I'm not saying that this is definitely untrue, but it is important to understand that this is a survey that relies on what people say they do, not what they actually did. Those two different things can be very different.
Congrats, you've just re-iterated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Marketing. This affects ALL studies. And even those that rely on real-world numbers and behaviours miss the "why". You can have position (action) or velocity (explanation), but both are tough to pin down. It's a very rough metaphor.
One important thing to note:
Jupiter = Internet research firm.
Soundscan = music sales tracking company.
Yea, the Internet may very well be taking sales away from college area record stores, but, IMHO, that's more because the students are buying online rather than not buying at all. The other growth statistics for the record industry support this theory (i.e. growth continues)
Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.
This makes sense, and supports the idea that the RIAA isn't worried about piracy, but about competition (with non-RIAA music).
--
umm, the market doesn't seem to think so. People (i.e. me) would much prefer to peruse pr0n from the comfort of their homes rather than some seedy cum-stained shack on the outskirts of town. You could probably blame our puritannical "won't somebody think to keep the children ignorant" roots for that, if you really wanted to.
I don't think I've ever been to a town that has a triving "red light district", but I've been there on the Net.
--
Oh and uh, I'm the one who wrote that first reply in case you couldn't tell.
it's usually not that easy to tell one ranting idiot from the next, that's why i login.
How is it that you've decided to let the industry that controls the creation of an artifact, define the legal definition of it's use? This "piracy" shit is coming straight from their mouths, and it has only one goal. It's FUD, and you know it. I'd like you site an example where more exposure to artistic endeavors has decreased the demand for such things. You even said yourself MP3 sounds like shit. You also said that real music fans will still buy albums (and I heartily agree). So how do you defend the idea that a limitless resource should be made limited solely because the people who make money off of it think that should be so?
Even the writer of the DMCA thinks it is crap now. He had no idea how to create a viable digital marketplace and these trade industry groups knew it. So they pushed their agenda, which now seems obvious "sue every new form of competition to oblivion over the laws we wrote two years ago."
hmm?
--