As long as Web sites don't start doing something stupid like requiring IE... oh... wait.
It's a sad day but unfortunately, if you want a site that utilizes anything more than basic HTML these days without crashing, IE is what you have to code for. Opera is ok but lacks key layout aspects that IE can handle and Netscape has mutated simply into a blob of useless crap.
Last I checked, 90%+ people on my sites used IE, so why shouldn't I write specifically for it?
Ah, but with DivX you actually sign a _contract_ saying that you enter into a PayPerView arrangement. Thus, the sale/rental is covered by contract law, not copyright law.
And you don't have to "agree" to Real's terms and conditions when you install the software? I'm certain you do, just as you must agree to almost any software vendor's terms for using their product. Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
Real's content is not floating around in the air like network TV. Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?,
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
If Braveheart comes on TNT, you can tape it... does that mean DVD manufacturers are "modifying copyright" simply because you can't copy a DVD without special equipment that is on the fringe of legality? Hell no. If this whole DeCSS thing works out for the "people" (it won't, don't get your hopes up) then this may change, but until then... it's a fact of life.
What most people don't seem to understand is that copyright is a bare minimum... if the data owner decides to add even more conditions, it's their right.. just as it's your right to decline to accept those terms and not utilize the data.
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it.. they can determine exactly how it can be used, and you as an end user only have two options... agree, or don't. You have no fair use rights in this case.
and Streambox can't distribute tools that decode the stream for such fair use puposes as time shifting and personal archiving. This is not good news for anyone hoping for commonsense wisdom from the bench when it comes to the provisions of the DMCA.
While I certainly see broadcast and cable TV being considered in time shifting arguments, I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx) but I'm not about to support a company that circumvents the safeguards put in place by the company selling the product either. I'll simply not use their product, in this case, RealPlayer. Their business model may not be right for you, that doesn't mean someone circumventing their protections is justified nor does it mean YOU have any rights to time shift the content just because you can under other fair use situations like broadcast TV.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
I don't see why this is a big deal. The ratings are there for a reason aren't they? Just like movie ratings, why shouldn't game ratings be enforced by those retailers who want to? I don't see any federal or state authority forcing K-Mart to do this, they simply feel it's responsible and that's their right.
Wal-mart asks for ID when I buy an R rated DVD (I'm 27 mind you) and I have no problem with that.
People seem to want to give CHILDREN all sorts of freedoms but the simple fact is, if you're not 18... you're not an adult and like it or not, you can't get whatever you want or do whatever you want.
If I were a parent, I'd much rather drop my 15 year old kids off at a theater that ENFORCES the ratings knowing that if by chance my kids do want to buy tickets to an R rated movie after I leave, they won't be able to. The same goes for stores that enforce game ratings. As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
Suggesting a boycott or "wall of shame" in these cases is just ridiculous and makes it seem like this story was written by a 14 year old who's mad he can't get Soldier of Fortune without his mom knowing.
If you want to be an irresponsible parent, fine... but as far as I'm concerned, K-Mart is doing the responsible parents of this world a favor by giving them yet another safeguard to make sure their kids don't buy what they don't want them to have.
I have no problems with the replies to my post, even the guy who told me to fuck off and die has a right to say it. He disagrees and that's fine, but what I find very odd (ok, not odd... more common place these days around here) is this:
Ok, I started with my default score of 2, and while my post could have been rated a 5 with the insightful and interesting scores, it could have also fallen down to -1 with the flamebait and overrated scores. So here's my question, if this moderation shit works... how can one post legitimately range from -1 to 5??
My point is, it can't... I assume those who moderated it up took the time to understand my position and respected my point of view while those who moderated it down took it as a personal insult on their free software movement and as a collective slap in the face.
Just goes to prove my point about how this "community" makes itself look like by their actions.
I'm sure this one will get moderated down as well (even though I'm checking the no score +1 box) but fuck it, I think it's important for people to see that this place is *not* for free ideas and communication, it is about towing the fanatical line and keeping in step with the rest of the zealots who you dare not disagree with.
I stand by what I originally said about this whole situation regardless if it's flamebait or insightful.
It's a shame that while folks like those on the KDE team are busy elevating Linux to a level where it is actually viable as a mainstream desktop OS, arrogant, self righteous people like GNU/Richard GNU/Stallman are trying to keep them down.
It's people like him that have simultaneously raised awareness of free software projects like Linux while making the entire "movement" seem like it is simply a bunch of irrational fanatics who have infinite axes to grind.
RMS should just go GNU/away and let *today's* developers have the accolades they deserve instead of acting childish just because he's not getting all of the GNU/recognition he thinks he deserves right now.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a relative outsider looking in but it doesn't take a genius to see non-productive back-biting when it stares you right in the face.)
You are blurring the line between *information* and copyrighted material. Bombmaking instructions, names/addresses, and even credit card numbers are NOT copyrighted nor are they protected from mass distribution by the copyright laws of the US. While other laws could be applied in certain instances (i.e. distributing witnesses addresses could be considered unlawful endangerment while credit card number distribution is obviously protected by anti-fraud laws), to put Napster in the same boat as someone trying to distribute legitimate information is just wrong.
Naspter is being shut down BECAUSE it *is* doing something illegal, regardless if you feel it is not. Knowingly trafficing copyrighted materials over your network is a crime. Even ISPs are liable if copyright violations are pointed out on their resources and they STILL do not remove them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to break the law or aide and abet those who are breaking the law.
The argument that MP3s are "information" will fail miserably in court which is why Napster's attorneys haven't even bothered to pursue it.
Suggesting that each violation be considered on a case by case basis is ludicrous. We have copyright law in place so that artists, publishers, or whomever owns the copyright is PROTECTED from the get-go. They should NOT have to track down each infringing action to have it removed especially when it's proven in court that Napster's only viable use is a criminal one (which will happen in the coming months, you can be sure of that.)
I'd have to agree with MSNBC's evaluation of the "spam-factor" such a service would have. Anyone with a somewhat common hotmail account knows exactly how spammers work when it comes to domains that have a TON of users. Their addressing methodology goes a little something like this:
TO: [anything-that-remotely-resembles-a-possible-name] @hotmail.com
I know this for a fact since I have never EVER given out or even used my hotmail address, yet I get over 30 pieces of spam there a day. MSN Messenger keeps me aware of this every time I load it.
Now with this Postal Service plan, you can damn sure bet that some slime ball who owns a "residential" database of all the millions and millions of residential addresses will in fact find a way to convert that to email addresses based on the physical address itself, then sell it to the highest spammer bidder. Hell, how hard is it to realize that resident@100-Main-St.New-York.NY.uspo.gov will end up in someone's inbox?
I for one will choose to be UNLISTED just as I choose to be unlisted in the phone book, if that *is* an option... which I doubt it will be.
Besides, the Postal Service makes TONS off of junk mail, why would they decline the option to let people SPAM their users after all? I had a P.O. Box one time and I got all sorts of stupid flyers, leaflets, etc. from day 1... I took them to the postmaster at my local branch and said "I don't want these in my P.O. Box, take me off the list...", he said "Sorry, we have a contract with those advertisers to put one of those in each P.O. Box, you CAN'T opt-out."
Now where oh where will we get our illegal pirated music?
Someone rips off Linus and you people form a lynch mod, someone stops you from ripping off Lars Ulrich and you whine, bitch, and moan about how it's so unfair and that you should boycott the RIAA blah blah blah.
You mean the.us domain? Or are you suffering from the delusion that.com is an american and not an international domain?
If memory serves, the Internet did in fact originate in the US and until VERY recently (relatively speaking), 99% of all.com domains registered were in fact in the US. That would lead anyone to believe that.com is in fact an American TLD. Hell I remember a time when.com,.net, and.org actually MEANT something and InterNIC required proof that you fit the standard to use.com,.net, or.org. *sigh*, the good old days.
If.com was not meant to be a US specific domain name, why isn't there a.com.us like there is for *many* of other countries using their country code after the.com?
I guess my point is... I, as a US citizen have no claim on a.br domain since that would take away from the domains set aside for Brazilian companies and citizens... since we only have.com,.net, and.org to choose from, how fair is it that now we're not only competing with ourselves, but everyone else on the planet even though they have their own, exclusive country coded domain to use?
This is getting way out of hand. First I had to worry about using a name that was being used or planned to be used by someone in my general area, then I had to worry about the multi-national conglomerates coming and taking my name regardless if I've had it for thousands of years, now I have to worry about sports teams from OTHER COUNTRIES coming and taking away my.com or.net name. WTF?!
I've also always wondered why other countries give their companies and citizens the.xx country domain to use while we here in the good 'ol US can't register one without an act of God, especially for personal use. I mean how fair is it that the only TLDs we in America have to choose from are also the most popular globally?
I guess the only way someone can get a unique.com domain name for personal use is to use their SSN. How pretty would http://www.231-22-5874.com look. (BTW, I just made that SSN up, don't go steal their identity since I dunno who it is.)
I guess ICANN needs to setup a.hum TLD for humans who aren't companies, sports teams, or parts of the government but still want to have a website without it being ripped from underneath them after what could have been months or YEARS of building up the name.
What a heaping steaming pile of crap this whole thing is becoming and once again it's the little guy who's getting the shit covered end of the stick.
Finally, I end virtually every post this way: if your employer "forces" you to use this stuff, just remember that in most countries you can always quit.
So you're suggestion is that I should up and QUIT my chosen profession which happens to be a PDA and Mobile electronics analyst where I'm senior editor of a *very large* site devoted to the subject. A site that is my *full time job* where 99% of the products and services we cover have direct ties to the most popular PIM on earth, Outlook 97/98/2000.
Yeah, I'll just up and quit because you've convinced me that Microsoft's integration that requires components of software packages that you DO NOT WANT just to fix a security problem is all my fault, you're a brilliant man... I've always wanted to pump gas for a living anyway, I guess it's better than "whoring".
(If only life were as simple as the self indulgent zealots try make it seem.)
A non-default installation of IE 5.01 SP1 or IE 5.5 also will eliminate this vulnerability, as long as an installation method is chosen that installs upgraded Outlook Express components.
The *REASON* I did a non-default installed of IE 5.5 was so I could EXCLUDE Outlook Express because I use Outlook 2000. So basically MS's Internet software is so "integrated" that you can't have one be patched for security reasons without installing all of them... even if that means redundant email clients wasting space.
I could care less if Microsoft is a monopoly... this bundling/tying/integration crap must stop for exactly this freakin reason! It's like if one part of the system is insecure, it makes ALMOST ALL OTHER MS APPS vulnerable. Anyone with half a brain can see the implications of this sort of methodology to software development. So the question is, who has Microsoft's half brain?
Though that's an issue, it'd be great for Napster to incorporated MD5 into their servers. That way, bands that didn't want to be part of it could present Napster with a list of signatures of files that were theirs and say "Please prevent the transfer of files with these signatures". As they found variances of them, they could present those to Napster as well, though pretty soon Napster would be a legitamate service with 20,000 users trading about 500 songs and no commercial viability.
While this idea has merit logistically speaking, legally speaking copyright law is not an opt-in system. Copyrights should be enforced without the copyright holder being required to request it or do anything more than create their original art. That's why there is no copyright registration office, opt-in is not the point of copyright.
Copyrights are not like Trademarks where you must protect them or lose them, copyrights are *rights* inherent to any original work(s) as soon as they are created and are protected by law from that point forward.
In a perfect world, artists and distribution points would be working together and such a solution would be a "win-win" situation, but right now it's all about litigation and the law is on the side of the copyright holder so there is slim chance that they will agree to such an opt-in system where they must dedicate resources, time, and money to gathering MD5 signatures to give to Napster just to make sure their legal rights are protected.
In a perfect world, the kids who created Napster would have thought of this from the get-go and approached the RIAA before their first beta hit the net. But if you know the real roots of Napster and it's creators, you'll realize that being "legal" was never part of any long or short term plans.
"Wow, I'm having a hard time finding illegal MP3's these days, I should write a program that utilizes an IRC type network to share files, like those 'reet DCC-bots in #MP3... and I'll name it after myself, whoo!!"
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes
This is where people like yourself just don't get it. Back in the days before the Internet, high bandwidth and GHz computers, consumers did not have the ABILITY to distribute music like their commercial counterparts... this is why making a tape for your friends never got ANYONE in this country arrested. It was no big threat simply due to the amount of tapes you could dub and distribute was so miniscule.
Now fast forward to the year 2000 where kids in dorms have FATTER PIPES than many corporate sites and you have a serious problem. Regardless if you're sharing your/MP3 directory for "non-commercial" purposes, you are DISTRIBUTING at the level of a commercial enterprise.
The dynamic has shifted from one guy bootlegging a few tapes for his buddies to people sharing hundreds of thousands of albums that can be downloaded in a matter of MINUTES by anyone in the free world. Non-commercial or not, the IMPACT is what matters... or in the case of MP3's, perceived impact.
Think of it this way... if you take the NY Post into your local library and copy an article for your friend, are you breaking the law? Sure but not on any grand scope. Now take this SAME article, scan it and put it up on your Geocities account, then get it linked from/.... are you breaking the law then? You're damn right you are, regardless if you intended for hundreds of thousands of people to utilize your illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed... now it's time for folks to step up to the plate and realize that with this power comes accountability, regardless of your intent to be "non-commercial".
This disturbs me. The Internet is all about sharing, but not just files, but ideas...
In the early days yes, the Internet was about sharing files, ideas, etc.... but now it's all about commerce which is generated by allowing ACCESS to files and ideas.
I have no opinion on the banning of file sharing (although I do have my opinion about Napster) but to assume that today's internet is the same internet of last year is just naive.
The internet is no longer about the free flow of ideas en masse, it is about the profitability of the product of content which is comprised of files, ideas, and other media. I don't see this as 'sharing', it is simply providing access at a fee (banner ads cost me bandwidth, screen real estate, and my eyeballs).
While many of us would like to go back to the days of old where only "geeks" knew how to maneuver around gopher, do we also want to go back to the days of 14.4 modems and T1 lines being the end-all be-all in bandwidth? I mean come on guys, someone has to pay for the OC-468 line across the Atlantic!
What does the Academy have to lose if they recognize films that hit the Internet before traditional theaters? Makes ya wonder who bank rolls the whole thing and if the "awards" are really awards after all.
Hell, I give myself awards all the time but no one takes me seriously because I'm partial to myself since I do feed and support myself. Could the same be said of an Academy that is supported solely by the giant media conglomerates that they give awards to?
Hrmmmmmm indeed.
just-ask-for-roger-at-video-bargainville dept
on
iCraveTV To Relaunch
·
· Score: 2
just-ask-for-roger-at-video-bargainville dept... great Moxy Früvous reference!
They say don't download/run anything from a source you don't trust... the question is, why develop a client to interact on a GLOBAL, utterly anonymous peer to peer file sharing network if you can only download stuff from people you KNOW and TRUST?
It's kinda like saying... "use this product to get access to files you never would have dreamed of, but don't ever download or run anything you can't get from a local friend."
Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? Rather, it illustrates the inherent weakness in this whole system and how people's desire to steal software overrides their common sense of not dealing with anonymous users you can't trust.
If someone on the street offered you an opened Coca-cola, who would be stupid enough to drink it? Change the Coca-Cola to Mad Dog 20-20 and almost any alcoholic would drink it showing that common sense is often thrown out the window to get what we think we want/need but what in a lot of cases is not good for us puts us (and in this case, our computers) at serious risk of harm.
www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Temporarily Unavailable This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com
Looks like more people have those CDR's than they expected. I for one have two of 'em and am eagerly awaiting my $400!
I know how it is to be so energized by an issue that you take any chance you can to voice your opinion, and Taco admits the problem with this quote, "my beef really isn't with Apogee as much as UCITA and what it makes theoretically legal. "
Personally, if I were being paid millions upon millions to run a site, I would be more careful when slandering a company that I see as an easy target to voice my views on a slightly related issue. A simple email from the slashdot editorial staff to Apogee could have probably flushed out the REAL details of this non-story but then Taco couldn't sound off against the UCITA like he wanted to now could he?
Maybe slashdot/Andover doesn't want to be considered a serious news outlet or responsible journalists and that's their prerogative, whatever generates pageviews/banner impressions makes the stock holders happy I guess. (Makes ya wonder how so many of these types of stories make their way onto the front page these days doesn't it?)
I always thought John had *control* of id, now it's obvious that he does not. If two rogue employees hold more than 50% of the company, they can basically clean house if they want to... including John Carmack.
I'm trying to figure out how someone as extremely intelligent as John let a company that he built from the ground up get into the hands of two obviously spiteful people.
What's next, Carmack is fired because he wants to use reflective light sources that Kevin and Adrian are totally against?
This could spell the beginning of the end for id I'm afraid.
As far as DooM III goes, I'm all for it *if* they do co-op play the way it was in DooM II. Deathmatch is simply old and boring now and co-op is where it's at, at least for me and my friends when we do LAN parties. For instance, last time we had a LAN party we spent 6 hours playing Rainbow Six co-op and about 20 minutes playing Quake III deathmatch. And even that was too long.
There goes the argument that data/code/music should be free and unfettered by copyright/patent/trademark laws. I mean, Linux is the GOD of this community right... and even though he protects his trademark (using *linux* in a domain name requires his approval, reference slashdot search) and is in favor of copyrights, the majority fight to keep Napster a float.
So this means that the zealot thieving masses who feel they are above copyright/trademark/patent law because they are fighting the "good fight" have two options, WAKE UP and smell the rights of content owners or continue to fight for piracy tools such as Napster and discredit yourselves even more.
Sure, peer to peer file sharing is not a crime, but creating an environment to where 95% of your users knowingly break the law is... especially when you KNOW the data they are exchanging is protected by copyright, hell you even CATALOG it for easy searches.
I see Napster as an arrogant attempt to "challenge the status-quo" in the music industry but unfortunately the "status-quo" they are challenging is long standing copyright law, and they will and deserve to lose.
I support MP3 as a format and an artists right to distribute music they create and own any way they see fit, and for those who wish (or are bound by contractual obligation) to remain part of the juggernaut that is the RIAA, they too deserve the same copyright protections as any other copyrighted material which is published regardless if you agree with how they choose to publish.
Those who fight for Napster are only hurting the cause of "freeing content", and they know it but the ability to get free music that they would otherwise have to pay for clouds their vision and shortens their perspective. And they claim the RIAA are money hungry greed hounds... how much cash are YOU willing to part with for that MP3 you just pirated off Napster... thank you, you just proved my point.
I have to ask where does it stop? What is next, someone goes into a adult book store and snaps pictures of you buying "teen ass" magazine and runs it in a local newspaper ad? What if this person offers you the magazine himself then snaps the pic and labels you a pedophile even though "teen ass" is perfectly legal to buy and possess if you are an adult?
My point is, yes pedophiles are the scum of the earth and yes using technology as a vehicle of the exploitation of children is a horrendous crime, but what makes this person the ultimate authority on who is branded with the scarlet letter and who is not?
What if the tables were turned and someone from fbi.gov got a file listing of the supposed child porn this person is offering, what will they say when they are raided for intent to distribute?
People STILL do time for trying to pass oregano off as pot, and bank robbers STILL do time when they use their finger in their pocket to imitate a gun, why shouldn't these people do time for trying to pass off "gotcha" images as child porn?
Let the cops setup the sting operations and let the criminals go through the justice system and THEN label them pedophiles. All this is is a misguided attempt at vigilantism without cause.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as Web sites don't start doing something stupid like requiring IE... oh... wait.
It's a sad day but unfortunately, if you want a site that utilizes anything more than basic HTML these days without crashing, IE is what you have to code for. Opera is ok but lacks key layout aspects that IE can handle and Netscape has mutated simply into a blob of useless crap.
Last I checked, 90%+ people on my sites used IE, so why shouldn't I write specifically for it?
Oh yeah, and I never use the default bookmarks.
Ah, but with DivX you actually sign a _contract_ saying that you enter into a PayPerView arrangement. Thus, the sale/rental is covered by contract law, not copyright law.
... does that mean DVD manufacturers are "modifying copyright" simply because you can't copy a DVD without special equipment that is on the fringe of legality? Hell no. If this whole DeCSS thing works out for the "people" (it won't, don't get your hopes up) then this may change, but until then ... it's a fact of life.
... if the data owner decides to add even more conditions, it's their right .. just as it's your right to decline to accept those terms and not utilize the data.
.. they can determine exactly how it can be used, and you as an end user only have two options ... agree, or don't. You have no fair use rights in this case.
And you don't have to "agree" to Real's terms and conditions when you install the software? I'm certain you do, just as you must agree to almost any software vendor's terms for using their product. Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
Real's content is not floating around in the air like network TV. Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?,
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
If Braveheart comes on TNT, you can tape it
What most people don't seem to understand is that copyright is a bare minimum
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it
and Streambox can't distribute tools that decode the stream for such fair use puposes as time shifting and personal archiving. This is not good news for anyone hoping for commonsense wisdom from the bench when it comes to the provisions of the DMCA.
While I certainly see broadcast and cable TV being considered in time shifting arguments, I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx) but I'm not about to support a company that circumvents the safeguards put in place by the company selling the product either. I'll simply not use their product, in this case, RealPlayer. Their business model may not be right for you, that doesn't mean someone circumventing their protections is justified nor does it mean YOU have any rights to time shift the content just because you can under other fair use situations like broadcast TV.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
I don't see why this is a big deal. The ratings are there for a reason aren't they? Just like movie ratings, why shouldn't game ratings be enforced by those retailers who want to? I don't see any federal or state authority forcing K-Mart to do this, they simply feel it's responsible and that's their right.
... you're not an adult and like it or not, you can't get whatever you want or do whatever you want.
... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
... but as far as I'm concerned, K-Mart is doing the responsible parents of this world a favor by giving them yet another safeguard to make sure their kids don't buy what they don't want them to have.
Wal-mart asks for ID when I buy an R rated DVD (I'm 27 mind you) and I have no problem with that.
People seem to want to give CHILDREN all sorts of freedoms but the simple fact is, if you're not 18
If I were a parent, I'd much rather drop my 15 year old kids off at a theater that ENFORCES the ratings knowing that if by chance my kids do want to buy tickets to an R rated movie after I leave, they won't be able to. The same goes for stores that enforce game ratings. As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them
Suggesting a boycott or "wall of shame" in these cases is just ridiculous and makes it seem like this story was written by a 14 year old who's mad he can't get Soldier of Fortune without his mom knowing.
If you want to be an irresponsible parent, fine
I have no problems with the replies to my post, even the guy who told me to fuck off and die has a right to say it. He disagrees and that's fine, but what I find very odd (ok, not odd ... more common place these days around here) is this:
... how can one post legitimately range from -1 to 5??
... I assume those who moderated it up took the time to understand my position and respected my point of view while those who moderated it down took it as a personal insult on their free software movement and as a collective slap in the face.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=6
Ok, I started with my default score of 2, and while my post could have been rated a 5 with the insightful and interesting scores, it could have also fallen down to -1 with the flamebait and overrated scores. So here's my question, if this moderation shit works
My point is, it can't
Just goes to prove my point about how this "community" makes itself look like by their actions.
I'm sure this one will get moderated down as well (even though I'm checking the no score +1 box) but fuck it, I think it's important for people to see that this place is *not* for free ideas and communication, it is about towing the fanatical line and keeping in step with the rest of the zealots who you dare not disagree with.
I stand by what I originally said about this whole situation regardless if it's flamebait or insightful.
It's a shame that while folks like those on the KDE team are busy elevating Linux to a level where it is actually viable as a mainstream desktop OS, arrogant, self righteous people like GNU/Richard GNU/Stallman are trying to keep them down.
It's people like him that have simultaneously raised awareness of free software projects like Linux while making the entire "movement" seem like it is simply a bunch of irrational fanatics who have infinite axes to grind.
RMS should just go GNU/away and let *today's* developers have the accolades they deserve instead of acting childish just because he's not getting all of the GNU/recognition he thinks he deserves right now.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a relative outsider looking in but it doesn't take a genius to see non-productive back-biting when it stares you right in the face.)
You are blurring the line between *information* and copyrighted material. Bombmaking instructions, names/addresses, and even credit card numbers are NOT copyrighted nor are they protected from mass distribution by the copyright laws of the US. While other laws could be applied in certain instances (i.e. distributing witnesses addresses could be considered unlawful endangerment while credit card number distribution is obviously protected by anti-fraud laws), to put Napster in the same boat as someone trying to distribute legitimate information is just wrong.
Naspter is being shut down BECAUSE it *is* doing something illegal, regardless if you feel it is not. Knowingly trafficing copyrighted materials over your network is a crime. Even ISPs are liable if copyright violations are pointed out on their resources and they STILL do not remove them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to break the law or aide and abet those who are breaking the law.
The argument that MP3s are "information" will fail miserably in court which is why Napster's attorneys haven't even bothered to pursue it.
Suggesting that each violation be considered on a case by case basis is ludicrous. We have copyright law in place so that artists, publishers, or whomever owns the copyright is PROTECTED from the get-go. They should NOT have to track down each infringing action to have it removed especially when it's proven in court that Napster's only viable use is a criminal one (which will happen in the coming months, you can be sure of that.)
I'd have to agree with MSNBC's evaluation of the "spam-factor" such a service would have. Anyone with a somewhat common hotmail account knows exactly how spammers work when it comes to domains that have a TON of users. Their addressing methodology goes a little something like this:
] @hotmail.com
... which I doubt it will be.
... I took them to the postmaster at my local branch and said "I don't want these in my P.O. Box, take me off the list ...", he said "Sorry, we have a contract with those advertisers to put one of those in each P.O. Box, you CAN'T opt-out."
TO: [anything-that-remotely-resembles-a-possible-name
I know this for a fact since I have never EVER given out or even used my hotmail address, yet I get over 30 pieces of spam there a day. MSN Messenger keeps me aware of this every time I load it.
Now with this Postal Service plan, you can damn sure bet that some slime ball who owns a "residential" database of all the millions and millions of residential addresses will in fact find a way to convert that to email addresses based on the physical address itself, then sell it to the highest spammer bidder. Hell, how hard is it to realize that resident@100-Main-St.New-York.NY.uspo.gov will end up in someone's inbox?
I for one will choose to be UNLISTED just as I choose to be unlisted in the phone book, if that *is* an option
Besides, the Postal Service makes TONS off of junk mail, why would they decline the option to let people SPAM their users after all? I had a P.O. Box one time and I got all sorts of stupid flyers, leaflets, etc. from day 1
Now I'm with Mailboxes ETC for obvious reasons.
Now where oh where will we get our illegal pirated music?
... other foot ... deal with it.
Someone rips off Linus and you people form a lynch mod, someone stops you from ripping off Lars Ulrich and you whine, bitch, and moan about how it's so unfair and that you should boycott the RIAA blah blah blah.
Shoe
You mean the .us domain? Or are you suffering from the delusion that .com is an american and not an international domain?
.com domains registered were in fact in the US. That would lead anyone to believe that .com is in fact an American TLD. Hell I remember a time when .com, .net, and .org actually MEANT something and InterNIC required proof that you fit the standard to use .com, .net, or .org. *sigh*, the good old days.
.com was not meant to be a US specific domain name, why isn't there a .com.us like there is for *many* of other countries using their country code after the .com?
... I, as a US citizen have no claim on a .br domain since that would take away from the domains set aside for Brazilian companies and citizens ... since we only have .com, .net, and .org to choose from, how fair is it that now we're not only competing with ourselves, but everyone else on the planet even though they have their own, exclusive country coded domain to use?
If memory serves, the Internet did in fact originate in the US and until VERY recently (relatively speaking), 99% of all
If
I guess my point is
Even if I checked the "No Score +1 Bonus" I still would have lost karma since TWO moderators decided to blast my post down to ZERO.
... yeah, that makes sense.
Odd thing is, I've seen similar posts moderated up to 4 or higher as "Funny".
So now that this one is +1 (I checked the box) I'll still probably lose another karma point for even replying
I still don't know what that freaking word is.
This is getting way out of hand. First I had to worry about using a name that was being used or planned to be used by someone in my general area, then I had to worry about the multi-national conglomerates coming and taking my name regardless if I've had it for thousands of years, now I have to worry about sports teams from OTHER COUNTRIES coming and taking away my .com or .net name. WTF?!
.xx country domain to use while we here in the good 'ol US can't register one without an act of God, especially for personal use. I mean how fair is it that the only TLDs we in America have to choose from are also the most popular globally?
.com domain name for personal use is to use their SSN. How pretty would http://www.231-22-5874.com look. (BTW, I just made that SSN up, don't go steal their identity since I dunno who it is.)
.hum TLD for humans who aren't companies, sports teams, or parts of the government but still want to have a website without it being ripped from underneath them after what could have been months or YEARS of building up the name.
I've also always wondered why other countries give their companies and citizens the
I guess the only way someone can get a unique
I guess ICANN needs to setup a
What a heaping steaming pile of crap this whole thing is becoming and once again it's the little guy who's getting the shit covered end of the stick.
Finally, I end virtually every post this way: if your employer "forces" you to use this stuff, just remember that in most countries you can always quit.
... I've always wanted to pump gas for a living anyway, I guess it's better than "whoring".
So you're suggestion is that I should up and QUIT my chosen profession which happens to be a PDA and Mobile electronics analyst where I'm senior editor of a *very large* site devoted to the subject. A site that is my *full time job* where 99% of the products and services we cover have direct ties to the most popular PIM on earth, Outlook 97/98/2000.
Yeah, I'll just up and quit because you've convinced me that Microsoft's integration that requires components of software packages that you DO NOT WANT just to fix a security problem is all my fault, you're a brilliant man
(If only life were as simple as the self indulgent zealots try make it seem.)
This annoys me:
... even if that means redundant email clients wasting space.
... this bundling/tying/integration crap must stop for exactly this freakin reason! It's like if one part of the system is insecure, it makes ALMOST ALL OTHER MS APPS vulnerable. Anyone with half a brain can see the implications of this sort of methodology to software development. So the question is, who has Microsoft's half brain?
A non-default installation of IE 5.01 SP1 or IE 5.5 also will eliminate this vulnerability, as long as an installation method is chosen that installs upgraded Outlook Express components.
The *REASON* I did a non-default installed of IE 5.5 was so I could EXCLUDE Outlook Express because I use Outlook 2000. So basically MS's Internet software is so "integrated" that you can't have one be patched for security reasons without installing all of them
I could care less if Microsoft is a monopoly
blarg.
Though that's an issue, it'd be great for Napster to incorporated MD5 into their servers. That way, bands that didn't want to be part of it could present Napster with a list of signatures of files that were theirs and say "Please prevent the transfer of files with these signatures". As they found variances of them, they could present those to Napster as well, though pretty soon Napster would be a legitamate service with 20,000 users trading about 500 songs and no commercial viability.
... and I'll name it after myself, whoo!!"
While this idea has merit logistically speaking, legally speaking copyright law is not an opt-in system. Copyrights should be enforced without the copyright holder being required to request it or do anything more than create their original art. That's why there is no copyright registration office, opt-in is not the point of copyright.
Copyrights are not like Trademarks where you must protect them or lose them, copyrights are *rights* inherent to any original work(s) as soon as they are created and are protected by law from that point forward.
In a perfect world, artists and distribution points would be working together and such a solution would be a "win-win" situation, but right now it's all about litigation and the law is on the side of the copyright holder so there is slim chance that they will agree to such an opt-in system where they must dedicate resources, time, and money to gathering MD5 signatures to give to Napster just to make sure their legal rights are protected.
In a perfect world, the kids who created Napster would have thought of this from the get-go and approached the RIAA before their first beta hit the net. But if you know the real roots of Napster and it's creators, you'll realize that being "legal" was never part of any long or short term plans.
"Wow, I'm having a hard time finding illegal MP3's these days, I should write a program that utilizes an IRC type network to share files, like those 'reet DCC-bots in #MP3
If you value your freedom--freedom to link and freedom to copy music for noncommercial purposes
... this is why making a tape for your friends never got ANYONE in this country arrested. It was no big threat simply due to the amount of tapes you could dub and distribute was so miniscule.
/MP3 directory for "non-commercial" purposes, you are DISTRIBUTING at the level of a commercial enterprise.
... or in the case of MP3's, perceived impact.
... if you take the NY Post into your local library and copy an article for your friend, are you breaking the law? Sure but not on any grand scope. Now take this SAME article, scan it and put it up on your Geocities account, then get it linked from /. ... are you breaking the law then? You're damn right you are, regardless if you intended for hundreds of thousands of people to utilize your illegal distribution of copyrighted material.
... now it's time for folks to step up to the plate and realize that with this power comes accountability, regardless of your intent to be "non-commercial".
This is where people like yourself just don't get it. Back in the days before the Internet, high bandwidth and GHz computers, consumers did not have the ABILITY to distribute music like their commercial counterparts
Now fast forward to the year 2000 where kids in dorms have FATTER PIPES than many corporate sites and you have a serious problem. Regardless if you're sharing your
The dynamic has shifted from one guy bootlegging a few tapes for his buddies to people sharing hundreds of thousands of albums that can be downloaded in a matter of MINUTES by anyone in the free world. Non-commercial or not, the IMPACT is what matters
Think of it this way
This is why your argument for "non-commercial" duplication and distribution is deemed to fail, it's a brave new world out there were the individual has gained a tremendous amount of publishing power, more than anyone could have ever dreamed
This disturbs me. The Internet is all about sharing, but not just files, but ideas ...
... but now it's all about commerce which is generated by allowing ACCESS to files and ideas.
In the early days yes, the Internet was about sharing files, ideas, etc.
I have no opinion on the banning of file sharing (although I do have my opinion about Napster) but to assume that today's internet is the same internet of last year is just naive.
The internet is no longer about the free flow of ideas en masse, it is about the profitability of the product of content which is comprised of files, ideas, and other media. I don't see this as 'sharing', it is simply providing access at a fee (banner ads cost me bandwidth, screen real estate, and my eyeballs).
While many of us would like to go back to the days of old where only "geeks" knew how to maneuver around gopher, do we also want to go back to the days of 14.4 modems and T1 lines being the end-all be-all in bandwidth? I mean come on guys, someone has to pay for the OC-468 line across the Atlantic!
What does the Academy have to lose if they recognize films that hit the Internet before traditional theaters? Makes ya wonder who bank rolls the whole thing and if the "awards" are really awards after all.
Hell, I give myself awards all the time but no one takes me seriously because I'm partial to myself since I do feed and support myself. Could the same be said of an Academy that is supported solely by the giant media conglomerates that they give awards to?
Hrmmmmmm indeed.
just-ask-for-roger-at-video-bargainville dept ... great Moxy Früvous reference!
...
Once I was the King of Spain
They say don't download/run anything from a source you don't trust ... the question is, why develop a client to interact on a GLOBAL, utterly anonymous peer to peer file sharing network if you can only download stuff from people you KNOW and TRUST?
... "use this product to get access to files you never would have dreamed of, but don't ever download or run anything you can't get from a local friend."
It's kinda like saying
Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? Rather, it illustrates the inherent weakness in this whole system and how people's desire to steal software overrides their common sense of not dealing with anonymous users you can't trust.
If someone on the street offered you an opened Coca-cola, who would be stupid enough to drink it? Change the Coca-Cola to Mad Dog 20-20 and almost any alcoholic would drink it showing that common sense is often thrown out the window to get what we think we want/need but what in a lot of cases is not good for us puts us (and in this case, our computers) at serious risk of harm.
Doh!
www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Temporarily Unavailable
This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com
Looks like more people have those CDR's than they expected. I for one have two of 'em and am eagerly awaiting my $400!
I know how it is to be so energized by an issue that you take any chance you can to voice your opinion, and Taco admits the problem with this quote, "my beef really isn't with Apogee as much as UCITA and what it makes theoretically legal. "
Personally, if I were being paid millions upon millions to run a site, I would be more careful when slandering a company that I see as an easy target to voice my views on a slightly related issue. A simple email from the slashdot editorial staff to Apogee could have probably flushed out the REAL details of this non-story but then Taco couldn't sound off against the UCITA like he wanted to now could he?
Maybe slashdot/Andover doesn't want to be considered a serious news outlet or responsible journalists and that's their prerogative, whatever generates pageviews/banner impressions makes the stock holders happy I guess. (Makes ya wonder how so many of these types of stories make their way onto the front page these days doesn't it?)
I always thought John had *control* of id, now it's obvious that he does not. If two rogue employees hold more than 50% of the company, they can basically clean house if they want to ... including John Carmack.
I'm trying to figure out how someone as extremely intelligent as John let a company that he built from the ground up get into the hands of two obviously spiteful people.
What's next, Carmack is fired because he wants to use reflective light sources that Kevin and Adrian are totally against?
This could spell the beginning of the end for id I'm afraid.
As far as DooM III goes, I'm all for it *if* they do co-op play the way it was in DooM II. Deathmatch is simply old and boring now and co-op is where it's at, at least for me and my friends when we do LAN parties. For instance, last time we had a LAN party we spent 6 hours playing Rainbow Six co-op and about 20 minutes playing Quake III deathmatch. And even that was too long.
There goes the argument that data/code/music should be free and unfettered by copyright/patent/trademark laws. I mean, Linux is the GOD of this community right ... and even though he protects his trademark (using *linux* in a domain name requires his approval, reference slashdot search) and is in favor of copyrights, the majority fight to keep Napster a float.
... especially when you KNOW the data they are exchanging is protected by copyright, hell you even CATALOG it for easy searches.
... how much cash are YOU willing to part with for that MP3 you just pirated off Napster ... thank you, you just proved my point.
So this means that the zealot thieving masses who feel they are above copyright/trademark/patent law because they are fighting the "good fight" have two options, WAKE UP and smell the rights of content owners or continue to fight for piracy tools such as Napster and discredit yourselves even more.
Sure, peer to peer file sharing is not a crime, but creating an environment to where 95% of your users knowingly break the law is
I see Napster as an arrogant attempt to "challenge the status-quo" in the music industry but unfortunately the "status-quo" they are challenging is long standing copyright law, and they will and deserve to lose.
I support MP3 as a format and an artists right to distribute music they create and own any way they see fit, and for those who wish (or are bound by contractual obligation) to remain part of the juggernaut that is the RIAA, they too deserve the same copyright protections as any other copyrighted material which is published regardless if you agree with how they choose to publish.
Those who fight for Napster are only hurting the cause of "freeing content", and they know it but the ability to get free music that they would otherwise have to pay for clouds their vision and shortens their perspective. And they claim the RIAA are money hungry greed hounds
I have to ask where does it stop? What is next, someone goes into a adult book store and snaps pictures of you buying "teen ass" magazine and runs it in a local newspaper ad? What if this person offers you the magazine himself then snaps the pic and labels you a pedophile even though "teen ass" is perfectly legal to buy and possess if you are an adult?
My point is, yes pedophiles are the scum of the earth and yes using technology as a vehicle of the exploitation of children is a horrendous crime, but what makes this person the ultimate authority on who is branded with the scarlet letter and who is not?
What if the tables were turned and someone from fbi.gov got a file listing of the supposed child porn this person is offering, what will they say when they are raided for intent to distribute?
People STILL do time for trying to pass oregano off as pot, and bank robbers STILL do time when they use their finger in their pocket to imitate a gun, why shouldn't these people do time for trying to pass off "gotcha" images as child porn?
Let the cops setup the sting operations and let the criminals go through the justice system and THEN label them pedophiles. All this is is a misguided attempt at vigilantism without cause.