Couldn't UK businesses also file patents in the US that US companies would have to honor? That way, US companies would be limited by the US's stupid patent system while all the companies in the UK would have free reign.
Actually, the first amendment spells it out pretty clearly.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The key part being "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Notice it says "an establishment", not "the establishment". It's pretty clear that they're saying Congress shall pass no law pertaining to any religious establishment.
I personally have no problem with the display of trees and such since Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity these days, even for most Christians (it has more to do with our society's rampant consumerism).
The next argument usually brought up by Christians is that "Our country is a christian country, just look on the back of a dollar bill! It says 'In God We Trust'". Many of the founding fathers of this country were Free Masons. In order to be a Free Mason, you must believe in "a god". Thus, it is likely that the references to god are, in fact, referring to the Free Mason concept of a god rather than any particular god.
P.S. - This "PS2 stockpiled by IRAQ" thing is an Urban Legend
There are several memory profiling programs out there, but the only one I've used much is memprof. It can now handle threaded software (like mozilla), as well as software that forks (apache). I use it to examine the actual memory usage of my apache server (I do a lot of mod_perl development).
Actually, thats only ~25megs or so. Those four "processes" are actually threads which are able to share memory (so while it looks like four processes each using 25 megs, it is really four threads sharing 25 megs).
Actually, most Free Software advocates that I know see the DOJ trial as a non-issue. Free software is already successfully challenging and beating MS on several fronts (apache, linux in the server space, etc) - this would be happening with or without the DOJ case.
With that said, your comparison makes no sense. Microsoft is getting smacked in the courtroom for breaking the law. These companies are getting sued by rambus over a frivolous patent. You are just trying to post a comment that "goes against the grain" because you know it will get mod'd up (notice the typical "I know this will get mod'd down...")
Anyone with enough resources will be able to track you down. Big corps usually have good private investigators on the payroll - these guys don't have to play by the rules like the cops/feds do. You can take some steps to make things considerably more difficult, however.
Use a *good* anonymous remailer in a country other than your own. If possible, use several remailers in several different countries. Distribute your software through Freenet and encourage users to set up mirrors. Use encryption software, such as GNUPG.
These suggestions are perfectly legal ways to obfuscate your identity. This is good because if you are caught, there won't be a lot of "enhancement" charges thrown at you (like getting caught with a few grams of pot, a small scale, and a (legal) gun). Depending on exactly how "subversive" this software is, you may decide it's worth breaking a few more laws to reduce your chances of getting caught.
I thought this was evident in my original post, but I'm definately not advocating piracy (you somehow equated "anti RIAA" = "pro piracy"). I am advocating using the internet to cut the big music companies out of the picture. I don't want to get music for free. I *want* to pay artists for their work. I personally really like having physical cd's with artwork, lyrics, etc. I don't, however, want to pay $20 for a cd and have 90% of that go to the shareholders of monopolistic music companies.
Regardless of your personal take on Courtney/Prince, I don't think either one has been advocating napster or piracy in general. Both (albeit, for their own reasons) seem to be advocating the creation of ways to allow artists to sell and promote their music (using the internet) without signing their life away to sony or other RIAA companies. Such a system will be mutually beneficial to both music producers and music lovers, so it's not a question of "if", but "when?" it will become practical and widespread.
The whole napster/piracy thing is a different issue. There will always be pirates, regardless of efforts to use technology to stop it. Oddly enough, most of the "anti-piracy" technology being used (CSS, MacroVision) today is aimed squarely at the consumer (namely, preventing the consumer from making "fair use" of the products they purchase), not commercial pirating operations. The major movie/music industry lobbies are also pushing for laws to severely restrict "fair use" and allow them to have anyone who breaks their security features imprisoned. This Sony VP makes it obvious that Sony (and corporations in general) have no problem trampling you and me if it's necessary to protect their "revenue".
FWIW, I do buy cd's, even from RIAA companies on occasion. I don't have gigs of pirated mp3's, but I do download mp3's to check out cd's before I buy them, which ultimately results in me buying more cd's. I do acknowledge that this is not always the case (some people will just pirate the music), but despite mp3's and napster, cd sales are up. I saw a study a few weeks ago that said napster users buy more cd's than non-napster users - I'm not sure how accurate the study was, but it wouldn't surprise me if the results are right on.
>Buy out/bribe Microsoft to put it in their next "upgrade"?
Do you really think that's far fetched? If sony can't get MS to do it, they'll just get a law passed to force them to (they already own the politicians).
While I agree it would be impossible for any one government/company to censor or control the internet, I don't think our chances would be so good against a coalition between the major corporations (who control the infrastructure) and the government (who can kill / imprison you if you step out of line). At least things will be interesting.
Yeah, Sony is going to fight back. The problem is, it's already too late. Sony and the rest of the members of the RIAA are basically fucked. Their customers hate them (thats you and me, bud). Their suppliers hate them (artists - see articles by Courtney Love, Prince). These two groups now have an easy way to cut the big music companies out of the deal. Both groups (artists and consumers) will benefit from this. It is only a matter of time. The cool part is, this is just the beginning.
I take the gimp and add tons of great new features to it. I then provide a web interface to allow users to use my modified version of the gimp and take advantage of my great new additions. Oh, I also charge $50/hr for access to this service
I'm not distributing my modified version of the gimp, so I do not have to release the source code to my changes. I am however letting other people use my modified version, and probably annoying the heck out of the gimp developers
If Larry Ellison's NCs became popular, you could provide an ASP service using modified GPL software (which runs on your servers, but the output is displayed on the NC) without giving the source away. This problem is much bigger than just web apps.
The RIAA knows by now that MP3 poses little threat to their bottom line. Despite huge amounts of "pirated" music being distributed across the net, sales have actually increased. The *real* threat is that artists may begin to realize that they don't need the record companies anymore - they can put their music out there on the net and promote it themselves (actually, I bet their fans will do all the work for them if they'll just put it out there!).
One of the arguments that I hear put forth a lot is that the time warners of the music industry provide a "filtering" service - so you don't have to waste your time listening to tons of shitty garage bands to find good music. This is somewhat true, but the big failure of this argument is that they filter the music based on their own priorities, not necessarily the quality of the music. So the music you get to listen to has simply been selected because it is the most profitable of the bunch.
The internet is vicious - even more vicious than all the barking lawyers the RIAA could ever hope to muster. Filing all the lawsuits in the world won't change the fact that the record companies are basically fucked. The artists (their suppliers) hate them. The listeners (their customers) hate them. And the two groups now see a way to work together in a mutually beneficial way. It's time to cut out the middle man.
There is no conflict. The license restrictions put on copyrighted things like music take away the end user's rights. The GPL, on the other hand, is all about giving the end user rights. The only restrictions in the GPL (like those which nVidia violated) exist to prevent someone from taking away the rights that the GPL gives you (ie - taking some GPL'd code and using it in closed-sourced software). Those who violate the GPL are trying to cage the IP back up. Those who pirate music (and other things) are setting it free (even if it is against the author's wishes).
"AOL! Remeber, the single reason they chose IE over NS was IE's ability to be imbedded into other applications"
Actually, AOL 'chose' IE because they wanted a spot on the windows desktop (on a default win95 install). IIRC, this is one of the things that has been brought up in the MS vs DOJ trial.
There is however a draft. Not quite an RFC, but it gives a good idea of where they are heading.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Slashdot Mirror
That had to be intentional on his part - notice it's the last sentance of every paragraph. Nice.
Couldn't UK businesses also file patents in the US that US companies would have to honor? That way, US companies would be limited by the US's stupid patent system while all the companies in the UK would have free reign.
Actually, the first amendment spells it out pretty clearly.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The key part being "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Notice it says "an establishment", not "the establishment". It's pretty clear that they're saying Congress shall pass no law pertaining to any religious establishment.
I personally have no problem with the display of trees and such since Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity these days, even for most Christians (it has more to do with our society's rampant consumerism).
The next argument usually brought up by Christians is that "Our country is a christian country, just look on the back of a dollar bill! It says 'In God We Trust'". Many of the founding fathers of this country were Free Masons. In order to be a Free Mason, you must believe in "a god". Thus, it is likely that the references to god are, in fact, referring to the Free Mason concept of a god rather than any particular god.
P.S. - This "PS2 stockpiled by IRAQ" thing is an Urban Legend
There are several memory profiling programs out there, but the only one I've used much is memprof. It can now handle threaded software (like mozilla), as well as software that forks (apache). I use it to examine the actual memory usage of my apache server (I do a lot of mod_perl development).
Actually, thats only ~25megs or so. Those four "processes" are actually threads which are able to share memory (so while it looks like four processes each using 25 megs, it is really four threads sharing 25 megs).
Yeah, but for what you paid for that cooling system, you could have just bought a faster CPU.
Actually, most Free Software advocates that I know see the DOJ trial as a non-issue. Free software is already successfully challenging and beating MS on several fronts (apache, linux in the server space, etc) - this would be happening with or without the DOJ case.
With that said, your comparison makes no sense. Microsoft is getting smacked in the courtroom for breaking the law. These companies are getting sued by rambus over a frivolous patent. You are just trying to post a comment that "goes against the grain" because you know it will get mod'd up (notice the typical "I know this will get mod'd down...")
Anandtech seems to having problems handling the load.
Netcraft sez:
OBOnTopic: It's nice to see DDR SDRAM starting to make it's way into the market. The sooner rambus goes away, the better.
Anyone with enough resources will be able to track you down. Big corps usually have good private investigators on the payroll - these guys don't have to play by the rules like the cops/feds do. You can take some steps to make things considerably more difficult, however.
Use a *good* anonymous remailer in a country other than your own. If possible, use several remailers in several different countries. Distribute your software through Freenet and encourage users to set up mirrors. Use encryption software, such as GNUPG.
These suggestions are perfectly legal ways to obfuscate your identity. This is good because if you are caught, there won't be a lot of "enhancement" charges thrown at you (like getting caught with a few grams of pot, a small scale, and a (legal) gun). Depending on exactly how "subversive" this software is, you may decide it's worth breaking a few more laws to reduce your chances of getting caught.
I thought this was evident in my original post, but I'm definately not advocating piracy (you somehow equated "anti RIAA" = "pro piracy"). I am advocating using the internet to cut the big music companies out of the picture. I don't want to get music for free. I *want* to pay artists for their work. I personally really like having physical cd's with artwork, lyrics, etc. I don't, however, want to pay $20 for a cd and have 90% of that go to the shareholders of monopolistic music companies.
Regardless of your personal take on Courtney/Prince, I don't think either one has been advocating napster or piracy in general. Both (albeit, for their own reasons) seem to be advocating the creation of ways to allow artists to sell and promote their music (using the internet) without signing their life away to sony or other RIAA companies. Such a system will be mutually beneficial to both music producers and music lovers, so it's not a question of "if", but "when?" it will become practical and widespread.
The whole napster/piracy thing is a different issue. There will always be pirates, regardless of efforts to use technology to stop it. Oddly enough, most of the "anti-piracy" technology being used (CSS, MacroVision) today is aimed squarely at the consumer (namely, preventing the consumer from making "fair use" of the products they purchase), not commercial pirating operations. The major movie/music industry lobbies are also pushing for laws to severely restrict "fair use" and allow them to have anyone who breaks their security features imprisoned. This Sony VP makes it obvious that Sony (and corporations in general) have no problem trampling you and me if it's necessary to protect their "revenue".
FWIW, I do buy cd's, even from RIAA companies on occasion. I don't have gigs of pirated mp3's, but I do download mp3's to check out cd's before I buy them, which ultimately results in me buying more cd's. I do acknowledge that this is not always the case (some people will just pirate the music), but despite mp3's and napster, cd sales are up. I saw a study a few weeks ago that said napster users buy more cd's than non-napster users - I'm not sure how accurate the study was, but it wouldn't surprise me if the results are right on.
>Buy out/bribe Microsoft to put it in their next "upgrade"?
Do you really think that's far fetched? If sony can't get MS to do it, they'll just get a law passed to force them to (they already own the politicians).
While I agree it would be impossible for any one government/company to censor or control the internet, I don't think our chances would be so good against a coalition between the major corporations (who control the infrastructure) and the government (who can kill / imprison you if you step out of line). At least things will be interesting.
Yeah, Sony is going to fight back. The problem is, it's already too late. Sony and the rest of the members of the RIAA are basically fucked. Their customers hate them (thats you and me, bud). Their suppliers hate them (artists - see articles by Courtney Love, Prince). These two groups now have an easy way to cut the big music companies out of the deal. Both groups (artists and consumers) will benefit from this. It is only a matter of time. The cool part is, this is just the beginning.
How many of you are just reading the comments on this article for the inevitable mysql vs postgresql vs commercial db flame fest? :)
I see your point, but consider this.
I take the gimp and add tons of great new features to it. I then provide a web interface to allow users to use my modified version of the gimp and take advantage of my great new additions. Oh, I also charge $50/hr for access to this service
I'm not distributing my modified version of the gimp, so I do not have to release the source code to my changes. I am however letting other people use my modified version, and probably annoying the heck out of the gimp developers
If Larry Ellison's NCs became popular, you could provide an ASP service using modified GPL software (which runs on your servers, but the output is displayed on the NC) without giving the source away. This problem is much bigger than just web apps.
The RIAA knows by now that MP3 poses little threat to their bottom line. Despite huge amounts of "pirated" music being distributed across the net, sales have actually increased. The *real* threat is that artists may begin to realize that they don't need the record companies anymore - they can put their music out there on the net and promote it themselves (actually, I bet their fans will do all the work for them if they'll just put it out there!).
One of the arguments that I hear put forth a lot is that the time warners of the music industry provide a "filtering" service - so you don't have to waste your time listening to tons of shitty garage bands to find good music. This is somewhat true, but the big failure of this argument is that they filter the music based on their own priorities, not necessarily the quality of the music. So the music you get to listen to has simply been selected because it is the most profitable of the bunch.
The internet is vicious - even more vicious than all the barking lawyers the RIAA could ever hope to muster. Filing all the lawsuits in the world won't change the fact that the record companies are basically fucked. The artists (their suppliers) hate them. The listeners (their customers) hate them. And the two groups now see a way to work together in a mutually beneficial way. It's time to cut out the middle man.
There is no conflict. The license restrictions put on copyrighted things like music take away the end user's rights. The GPL, on the other hand, is all about giving the end user rights. The only restrictions in the GPL (like those which nVidia violated) exist to prevent someone from taking away the rights that the GPL gives you (ie - taking some GPL'd code and using it in closed-sourced software). Those who violate the GPL are trying to cage the IP back up. Those who pirate music (and other things) are setting it free (even if it is against the author's wishes).
"AOL! Remeber, the single reason they chose IE over NS was IE's ability to be imbedded into other applications"
Actually, AOL 'chose' IE because they wanted a spot on the windows desktop (on a default win95 install). IIRC, this is one of the things that has been brought up in the MS vs DOJ trial.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."