Re:Good News, the only problem is...
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 1
now we don't get the opportunity to test the validity of the DMCA in the court system.
Hey, so, anyone who wants to test the validity of the DMCA in court should probably go out their own damn selves and try to get arrested under the criminal section.
Dmitry didn't volunteer to go to jail, and he shouldn't have to stay there for years, potentially, in order to overturn a law in our country, 10000 miles from his home, wife, and children.
Advocates who want to test the law should therefore step forward and get arrested. If you need help figuring out how to make, and make money off of, so-called circumvention devices, well, I suggest you start making CD-ROMs of DeCSS and sell them over the Internet. Quick way to bring down the shit hammer on your own head.
Just to be clear, Netscape Plug-ins (like Flash) have a different interface than ActiveX controls.
The system design is different, too. Yes, they're both binary, native code modules that run in the browser space. But ActiveX controls download automatically (and possibly even without warning) from the site in question. Plug-ins need to be installed on the machine running the browser, and may even require restarting the browser.
Both Internet Explorer and Navigator support plug-ins. I believe Netscape _may_ have some compatibility module for ActiveX, but IIRC it's kind of flaky.
Maybe we should reconsider whether making money is a good measure of the value of a magazine. Factoring out (whether it makes money) from (whether it should survive) might mean that magazines survive longer.
Many off-line publications are supported largely or solely by donations from concerned listeners/viewers/readers. For example, public radio, public television, etc. There's no complicated subscription process, nor are their intrusive and unproductive ads. (Some paper magazines, like The Nation, combine a subscription model with donation support.)
Those who value independent Web publications should maybe think about changing the way that these publications exist, rather than considering it a question of market economics. Sure, surviving as a business is one way to keep a magazine up, but there are others. And really, isn't media too important to be left in the hands of professionals?
As an independent Webzine publisher, I have to take exception to this entire article.
There are any number of independent Web magazines still producing valuable daily content. Pigdog Journal is one. Others can be found at, say, the Webzine 2001 site. Indymedia is another great resource.
Zines, of course, don't have the reach or breadth of a well-funded media company. This is a feature, not a bug. By focusing on particular issues, and by giving a particular point of view, zines as a whole are able to give a more truthful and deep view of the world than the watered-down mutterings of any given mass media publication.
Not to be too harsh, but suck and feed were fairly light and fluffy as far as magazines go. Suck published a single article each day. Feed maybe got one out a day, maybe. This is not the foundation of a healthy independent media, folks. Really, in the big picture, they won't be missed.
Finding, using, and reading zines is harder for the average person than getting spoon-fed conglomerate media baloney. But those who think that media diversity is important should take the time to focus on, and support, independent publishers, rather than decrying their insignificance.
So, "Freenet for Fools" was written by a Windows user. I think it was originally "Freenet for D*mmies," but because of trademark issues the name was changed.
Well, Oskar took the deal. He probably would have done the work for free, but this arrangement keeps someone from snatching him up before 0.4 comes out.
Frankly, I wouldn't work for $2500 either. But then again, I'm not anywhere near as nutso as Oskar is.
So, I'm not going to say that that's not a plausible scenario. But doesn't that mean that people who are sympathetic with information freedom should be INSTALLING and USING Freenet right now?
Freenet has become a fine platform for Web publishing, for example. If you've got a Web site (ANY Website -- even pictures of your cat) you should REALLY REALLY read the Website publishing HOWTO. It gives step-by-step instructions on how to put your site into Freenet.
Remember, back in the day, the World Wide Web and other Internet services had the same outlaw reputation that peer-to-peer systems like Freenet have right now. It was only because many "ordinary" people put their "ordinary" content on the Web that it became an acceptable, in fact indispensible, computing platform.
We can do that with Freenet, if we work at it. But it takes thousands of individual efforts to make it happen. If you think there's a potential for a bad future for Freenet, you need to start helping, rather than resigning yourself to Yet More Totalitarian Bullshit.
Hey, when Freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have Freedom. And if that's the case, make me an outlaw, man!
Seriously, it knocks me out when people say stuff like this. If free speech and freedom of the press can be outlawed, then don't we have ALL THE MORE NEED for an alternative publishing system? If you're this concerned, then you need to get Freenet going DAMN QUICK, man.
As to the illegality: there are a number of ways to make Freenet run "under the radar," such as using steganography to camouflage Freenet protocol messages as, say, mail messages, or HTTP pr0n downloads, or anything else.
That's not on the Freenet development roadmap for a while, but it's definitely something that's been suggested.
So, as a member of the Freenet development group and a Freenet publisher (check out Pigdog Journal on Freenet, eh? get my keys propagated!), I have to say that I really applaud this move.
I don't know if the future of Free Software projects is really in donation-based organizations like Freenet, but it seems like it gives a nice "push" to projects that are in high-velocity development phases.
I especially think that the hiring of an employee at non-profit wages is a great way to spend the donation money. We all want a better, faster, stronger, more anonymous, less attackable Freenet, and I think this will really help. Not to mention that Oskar is a pretty OK programmer, despite being an irascible grouch. B-)
As per the low wages: I think the wages are just right, actually. They're enough that we keep Oskar on a leash for a few months, but they're not enough that the rest of the developers get jealous and slack off from working.
One more thing: people interested in anonymity should check out EOF, a collection of applications like mail, news, apt (!!), etc. that work over Freenet. Good shit.
Well, although I agree with Mr. Clarke about the current level of maturity of this project, I have to give the fellows a hearty huzzah just for the pure hubris of the whole thing.
I mean, holy mackerel! A SQL enging built on top of Freenet?! The mind boggles!
How is computer code expressive? In the same way
that a written play, a piece of sheet music, or a piece of dance notation is expressive. Each is a set of instructions for the performance of an act -- the presentation of a play, the running of a program, the dancing of a ballet -- but we also respect them in their own rights as expressive works.
For example, music composition students often study the sheet music for important symphonies of past centuries' master composers. There is information and expression that can only be comprehended by another musician from reading the sheet music. By merely listening to the music, they would be unable to discern the many levels of complexity that give the performance its rich character. Only by referring to the music -- the instructions -- are they able to fully understand and appreciate the composers' expression and technique.
Is the music as performed expressive? Of course. But the instructions are also expressive.
Consider also the plays of Shakespeare -- pieces of art that are required reading for almost every high school and college student in America. We all recognize that attending a Shakespeare performance is a rich and exciting experience. But no one would say, therefore, that reading the plays is not equally, if not more, rich.
Why is computer code like a piece of sheet music, rather than like (say) a painting? A painter makes a painting only to be viewed in one particular way. Everyone who looks at a painting looks at it the same way.
A composer, however, makes sheet music for two audiences at the same time. One is, obviously, the "end user" audience, the people attending a symphony or opera. The other audience is his or her peers, other composers, other musicians, any one else who could learn from, enjoy, enhance or perform the piece.
Like music, computer code must go through a process of transformation -- performance -- before it is expressive to its "symphony" audience. But even as is, unperformed, untransformed, a piece of code has expression for those who know how to read it. To a layman, the dots and lines of a piece of sheet music are just so much gibber-gabber, but to a musician they are a fascinating artifact, expressive beyond any words.
Similarly, for a computer programmer, the code in a computer program can provide amazing vistas of new knowledge, expertise, humor, and virtuosity that would never be known just by running the program -- like listening to the symphony.
Now, oftentimes code is considered different from other expression because it is -functional-. Code, when used to instruct a computer, can actual make something happen -- maybe even something illegal. But, in reality, code is no different from a play or a piece of music in that regard. Plays and music, as well as choreography, make real things happen.
Consider a play with the following stage direction: "JACK moves upstage, pacing frantically. Then, grabbing the knife off the table, he dives into the audience and stabs 2 random audience members in the head and neck."
Obviously, the PERFORMANCE of this act would be illegal, even if it -is- expressive (Expressive of what, I dunno. Something horrible, I presume.) But can the text of the play itself be suppressed? One would normally suggest that the playwright is not responsible for the actual murder, even though he wrote the instructions. The actor playing JACK is responsible for obeying the law, no matter what the play says to do. Wouldn't, really, the user who transforms and executes a program be ultimately responsible for the actions of that program -- not the coder who composed it?
In summary: code is like a play, or like sheet music, or like choreography notation. All of these things enjoy the protection of First Amendment expression in our legal system. Code should have an equal level of protection.
And, really: how can an industry that expects First Amendment protection for both the instructions (scripts) and performance (films) of its products see things any differently?
First off: firm believer in evolution here, no question. But I think the writer has the cart before the horse -- the evidence he provides is strong evidence only if you already believe in evolution and genetics.
The evidence (again): it appears that the genes making up the human genome are combinations of other genes used by lower orders. So, if you buy that humanity evolved, it seems very clear that as evolution progressed, the genes that were used were the ones that were around.
It's kinda like if you are walking down the street and you see a Mercedes wrapped around a pole. You can kind of assume that somebody drove into the pole.
But if you don't believe in evolution, there's no compelling reason to believe that just because DNA appears recycled necessarily means it is. Like, it could have just been made that way, straight ahead. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, after all.
To extend the example, it's UNLIKELY but POSSIBLE that the Mercedes you're seeing is an art project, and that the artist built the car from the ground up, right on that spot, from smashed parts from an entirely different accident. Actually, he might have built it from soda cans. If you don't believe in the paradigm of "internal combustion," you could possibly justify that the car was built right there.
The main difference between evolution and scientific creationism is that creationism depends so much on this undecidability and far-fetched alternate explanations. Evolution wins the day by the Occam's Razor approach, BUT that is not, formally, a logical proof. Like, just because evolution is more consistent, cohesive, and useful than creationism doesn't mean that it's provably true. Of course, real scientists just say, "Good enough, though," and move on.
People interested should check out the work of Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science. These are interesting questions.
"[Free] has always referred to price. That's what it means. That's all."
Ha! I guess we need to go back and correct Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, the ideas of "Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, etc." and of course "Free to Be You and Me." All of them are using the term "free" incorrectly.
It's probably important to note that what the law means by "e-signatures" is NOT the same as digital signatures (like PGP-signing your e-mail).
"E-signatures" are things like click-through licensing. "Click here to accept the agreement." "By pressing 'Accept', you agree to...". In other words, it's a way of making legally binding the bogus licenses that companies have been forcing on users for years (e.g., the Windows EULA).
I highly recommend the following URL for great info on e-sigs:
So, it's not like ESR just got invited out of the blue to join the PTO advisory board. It took a lot of work from Open Source and Web freedom advocates.
Check out especially this page on BurnAllGifs.org and this article on Pigdog Journal. Cool groups like RTMark also got into the fight.
Of course, this story was submitted several times to Slashdot -- BEFORE the nominations process was over -- but apparently it wasn't important enough then to cover. And now that it's a done deal, it's covered here like it was an effortless thing.
Too bad Slashdot is doing such a bad job covering the important movements that are changing the face of the Internet. Just remember: for every rotten turn of events you read about on Slashdot, there's a group of dedicated people somewhere working to fight it. Too bad/. can't help you find them and work for freedom, too.
Hey, got some click-throughs on this, thought I'd check it out.
The comment is true. It'd be GREAT to see a Slashdot article on this issue. The USPTO (and nominees) need to hear from the Slashdot community to understand that patents are important to all of us.
I submitted the URL for our article to Slashdot already, and it was declined. Someone pointed out that Slashdot.org is a GIF patent licensee, and maybe they can't rock the boat on this issue. So my guess is they won't run the story. Sad, really!
But if you care about Internet freedom and Open Source software, you should send in a nomination before the April 28 deadline. It's not too late.
I'd post these comments on PDJ, but we're currently swamped with slashdot hits, so I figgered I'd do it here:
Yes, it's silly. Yes, it's a joke. But humor is one of the biggest assets of the freedom-loving community. Let's use it wisely.
Wide distribution of DeCSS *may* be a minor nuisance for "good" people looking for DeCSS. Note, however, that the DVD-CCA has done much, MUCH worse damage by shutting down sites with DeCSS and sites that link to sites with DeCSS. The problem of having to sift through false DeCSS's is a drop in the bucket by comparison.
Also remember that someone who's looking for DeCSS just to use it only needs to find *one* copy. Even if they get a few false positives, they will eventually find a real one. However, someone with a legal agenda will be looking for ALL copies. Having thousands of decoys will make their hunt much more difficult.
If you're really worried about making it easier for "good" people to find DeCSS, mirror it! Or at least link to the excellent meta-site at dvd-copy.com.
Someone smart will be able to find the "real" DeCSS using file sizes and hashes. Fine! Let's make them work harder. Also, the person who does that coding (they'll probably use Free Software like perl to get it done) should think long and hard about it. Shame on geeks who sell out their brothers to The Man!
I do not weep for Jack Valenti and the MPAA. They already mentioned the DeCSS Distribution Contest in legal filings. I'm sorry if we're making it hard to sue the Internet. Maybe the next industry cartel with this idea will think twice about it.
If you can't get into Pigdog Journal, try one of these mirror sites:
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, so, anyone who wants to test the validity of the DMCA in court should probably go out their own damn selves and try to get arrested under the criminal section.
Dmitry didn't volunteer to go to jail, and he shouldn't have to stay there for years, potentially, in order to overturn a law in our country, 10000 miles from his home, wife, and children.
Advocates who want to test the law should therefore step forward and get arrested. If you need help figuring out how to make, and make money off of, so-called circumvention devices, well, I suggest you start making CD-ROMs of DeCSS and sell them over the Internet. Quick way to bring down the shit hammer on your own head.
Just to be clear, Netscape Plug-ins (like Flash) have a different interface than ActiveX controls.
The system design is different, too. Yes, they're both binary, native code modules that run in the browser space. But ActiveX controls download automatically (and possibly even without warning) from the site in question. Plug-ins need to be installed on the machine running the browser, and may even require restarting the browser.
Both Internet Explorer and Navigator support plug-ins. I believe Netscape _may_ have some compatibility module for ActiveX, but IIRC it's kind of flaky.
Many off-line publications are supported largely or solely by donations from concerned listeners/viewers/readers. For example, public radio, public television, etc. There's no complicated subscription process, nor are their intrusive and unproductive ads. (Some paper magazines, like The Nation, combine a subscription model with donation support.)
Those who value independent Web publications should maybe think about changing the way that these publications exist, rather than considering it a question of market economics. Sure, surviving as a business is one way to keep a magazine up, but there are others. And really, isn't media too important to be left in the hands of professionals?
There are any number of independent Web magazines still producing valuable daily content. Pigdog Journal is one. Others can be found at, say, the Webzine 2001 site. Indymedia is another great resource.
Zines, of course, don't have the reach or breadth of a well-funded media company. This is a feature, not a bug. By focusing on particular issues, and by giving a particular point of view, zines as a whole are able to give a more truthful and deep view of the world than the watered-down mutterings of any given mass media publication.
Not to be too harsh, but suck and feed were fairly light and fluffy as far as magazines go. Suck published a single article each day. Feed maybe got one out a day, maybe. This is not the foundation of a healthy independent media, folks. Really, in the big picture, they won't be missed.
Finding, using, and reading zines is harder for the average person than getting spoon-fed conglomerate media baloney. But those who think that media diversity is important should take the time to focus on, and support, independent publishers, rather than decrying their insignificance.
So, "Freenet for Fools" was written by a Windows user. I think it was originally "Freenet for D*mmies," but because of trademark issues the name was changed.
It doesn't really act like, say, a Web server.
Well, Oskar took the deal. He probably would have done the work for free, but this arrangement keeps someone from snatching him up before 0.4 comes out.
Frankly, I wouldn't work for $2500 either. But then again, I'm not anywhere near as nutso as Oskar is.
Freenet has become a fine platform for Web publishing, for example. If you've got a Web site (ANY Website -- even pictures of your cat) you should REALLY REALLY read the Website publishing HOWTO. It gives step-by-step instructions on how to put your site into Freenet.
Remember, back in the day, the World Wide Web and other Internet services had the same outlaw reputation that peer-to-peer systems like Freenet have right now. It was only because many "ordinary" people put their "ordinary" content on the Web that it became an acceptable, in fact indispensible, computing platform.
We can do that with Freenet, if we work at it. But it takes thousands of individual efforts to make it happen. If you think there's a potential for a bad future for Freenet, you need to start helping, rather than resigning yourself to Yet More Totalitarian Bullshit.
Seriously, it knocks me out when people say stuff like this. If free speech and freedom of the press can be outlawed, then don't we have ALL THE MORE NEED for an alternative publishing system? If you're this concerned, then you need to get Freenet going DAMN QUICK, man.
As to the illegality: there are a number of ways to make Freenet run "under the radar," such as using steganography to camouflage Freenet protocol messages as, say, mail messages, or HTTP pr0n downloads, or anything else.
That's not on the Freenet development roadmap for a while, but it's definitely something that's been suggested.
I don't know if the future of Free Software projects is really in donation-based organizations like Freenet, but it seems like it gives a nice "push" to projects that are in high-velocity development phases.
I especially think that the hiring of an employee at non-profit wages is a great way to spend the donation money. We all want a better, faster, stronger, more anonymous, less attackable Freenet, and I think this will really help. Not to mention that Oskar is a pretty OK programmer, despite being an irascible grouch. B-)
As per the low wages: I think the wages are just right, actually. They're enough that we keep Oskar on a leash for a few months, but they're not enough that the rest of the developers get jealous and slack off from working.
One more thing: people interested in anonymity should check out EOF, a collection of applications like mail, news, apt (!!), etc. that work over Freenet. Good shit.
Well, although I agree with Mr. Clarke about the current level of maturity of this project, I have to give the fellows a hearty huzzah just for the pure hubris of the whole thing.
I mean, holy mackerel! A SQL enging built on top of Freenet?! The mind boggles!
How is computer code expressive? In the same way
that a written play, a piece of sheet music, or a piece of dance notation is expressive. Each is a set of instructions for the performance of an act -- the presentation of a play, the running of a program, the dancing of a ballet -- but we also respect them in their own rights as expressive works.
For example, music composition students often study the sheet music for important symphonies of past centuries' master composers. There is information and expression that can only be comprehended by another musician from reading the sheet music. By merely listening to the music, they would be unable to discern the many levels of complexity that give the performance its rich character. Only by referring to the music -- the instructions -- are they able to fully understand and appreciate the composers' expression and technique.
Is the music as performed expressive? Of course. But the instructions are also expressive.
Consider also the plays of Shakespeare -- pieces of art that are required reading for almost every high school and college student in America. We all recognize that attending a Shakespeare performance is a rich and exciting experience. But no one would say, therefore, that reading the plays is not equally, if not more, rich.
Why is computer code like a piece of sheet music, rather than like (say) a painting? A painter makes a painting only to be viewed in one particular way. Everyone who looks at a painting looks at it the same way.
A composer, however, makes sheet music for two audiences at the same time. One is, obviously, the "end user" audience, the people attending a symphony or opera. The other audience is his or her peers, other composers, other musicians, any one else who could learn from, enjoy, enhance or perform the piece.
Like music, computer code must go through a process of transformation -- performance -- before it is expressive to its "symphony" audience. But even as is, unperformed, untransformed, a piece of code has expression for those who know how to read it. To a layman, the dots and lines of a piece of sheet music are just so much gibber-gabber, but to a musician they are a fascinating artifact, expressive beyond any words.
Similarly, for a computer programmer, the code in a computer program can provide amazing vistas of new knowledge, expertise, humor, and virtuosity that would never be known just by running the program -- like listening to the symphony.
Now, oftentimes code is considered different from other expression because it is -functional-. Code, when used to instruct a computer, can actual make something happen -- maybe even something illegal. But, in reality, code is no different from a play or a piece of music in that regard. Plays and music, as well as choreography, make real things happen.
Consider a play with the following stage direction: "JACK moves upstage, pacing frantically. Then, grabbing the knife off the table, he dives into the audience and stabs 2 random audience members in the head and neck."
Obviously, the PERFORMANCE of this act would be illegal, even if it -is- expressive (Expressive of what, I dunno. Something horrible, I presume.) But can the text of the play itself be suppressed? One would normally suggest that the playwright is not responsible for the actual murder, even though he wrote the instructions. The actor playing JACK is responsible for obeying the law, no matter what the play says to do. Wouldn't, really, the user who transforms and executes a program be ultimately responsible for the actions of that program -- not the coder who composed it?
In summary: code is like a play, or like sheet music, or like choreography notation. All of these things enjoy the protection of First Amendment expression in our legal system. Code should have an equal level of protection.
And, really: how can an industry that expects First Amendment protection for both the instructions (scripts) and performance (films) of its products see things any differently?
First off: firm believer in evolution here, no question. But I think the writer has the cart before the horse -- the evidence he provides is strong evidence only if you already believe in evolution and genetics.
The evidence (again): it appears that the genes making up the human genome are combinations of other genes used by lower orders. So, if you buy that humanity evolved, it seems very clear that as evolution progressed, the genes that were used were the ones that were around.
It's kinda like if you are walking down the street and you see a Mercedes wrapped around a pole. You can kind of assume that somebody drove into the pole.
But if you don't believe in evolution, there's no compelling reason to believe that just because DNA appears recycled necessarily means it is. Like, it could have just been made that way, straight ahead. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, after all.
To extend the example, it's UNLIKELY but POSSIBLE that the Mercedes you're seeing is an art project, and that the artist built the car from the ground up, right on that spot, from smashed parts from an entirely different accident. Actually, he might have built it from soda cans. If you don't believe in the paradigm of "internal combustion," you could possibly justify that the car was built right there.
The main difference between evolution and scientific creationism is that creationism depends so much on this undecidability and far-fetched alternate explanations. Evolution wins the day by the Occam's Razor approach, BUT that is not, formally, a logical proof. Like, just because evolution is more consistent, cohesive, and useful than creationism doesn't mean that it's provably true. Of course, real scientists just say, "Good enough, though," and move on.
People interested should check out the work of Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science. These are interesting questions.
"[Free] has always referred to price. That's what it means. That's all."
Ha! I guess we need to go back and correct Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, the ideas of "Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, etc." and of course "Free to Be You and Me." All of them are using the term "free" incorrectly.
Free your mind, your ass will follow.
~Mr. Bad
I saw a copy of this book in Freenet, too. Try:
KSK@text/book/suelette+dreyfus/underground
Looks like a good read.
~Mr. Bad
It's probably important to note that what the law means by "e-signatures" is NOT the same as digital signatures (like PGP-signing your e-mail).
"E-signatures" are things like click-through licensing. "Click here to accept the agreement." "By pressing 'Accept', you agree to...". In other words, it's a way of making legally binding the bogus licenses that companies have been forcing on users for years (e.g., the Windows EULA).
I highly recommend the following URL for great info on e-sigs:
http://cryptome.org/esigs-suck.htm
~Mr. Bad
So, it's not like ESR just got invited out of the blue to join the PTO advisory board. It took a lot of work from Open Source and Web freedom advocates.
Check out especially this page on BurnAllGifs.org and this article on Pigdog Journal. Cool groups like RTMark also got into the fight.
Of course, this story was submitted several times to Slashdot -- BEFORE the nominations process was over -- but apparently it wasn't important enough then to cover. And now that it's a done deal, it's covered here like it was an effortless thing.
Too bad Slashdot is doing such a bad job covering the important movements that are changing the face of the Internet. Just remember: for every rotten turn of events you read about on Slashdot, there's a group of dedicated people somewhere working to fight it. Too bad /. can't help you find them and work for freedom, too.
This is fabulous! We're wasting precious MPAA legal $$$ on obvious hoaxes. Beaujolais to the fine young Oxford student who's Fighting the Power!
Uh, I don't know about anyone else, but I already submitted this story, and it was declined.
~Mr. Bad
-
Hey, got some click-throughs on this, thought I'd check it out.
The comment is true. It'd be GREAT to see a Slashdot article on this issue. The USPTO (and nominees) need to hear from the Slashdot community to understand that patents are important to all of us.
I submitted the URL for our article to Slashdot already, and it was declined. Someone pointed out that Slashdot.org is a GIF patent licensee, and maybe they can't rock the boat on this issue. So my guess is they won't run the story. Sad, really!
But if you care about Internet freedom and Open Source software, you should send in a nomination before the April 28 deadline. It's not too late.
I'd post these comments on PDJ, but we're currently swamped with slashdot hits, so I figgered I'd do it here:
- Yes, it's silly. Yes, it's a joke. But humor is one of the biggest assets of the freedom-loving community. Let's use it wisely.
- Wide distribution of DeCSS *may* be a minor nuisance for "good" people looking for DeCSS. Note, however, that the DVD-CCA has done much, MUCH worse damage by shutting down sites with DeCSS and sites that link to sites with DeCSS. The problem of having to sift through false DeCSS's is a drop in the bucket by comparison.
- Also remember that someone who's looking for DeCSS just to use it only needs to find *one* copy. Even if they get a few false positives, they will eventually find a real one. However, someone with a legal agenda will be looking for ALL copies. Having thousands of decoys will make their hunt much more difficult.
- If you're really worried about making it easier for "good" people to find DeCSS, mirror it! Or at least link to the excellent meta-site at dvd-copy.com.
- Someone smart will be able to find the "real" DeCSS using file sizes and hashes. Fine! Let's make them work harder. Also, the person who does that coding (they'll probably use Free Software like perl to get it done) should think long and hard about it. Shame on geeks who sell out their brothers to The Man!
- I do not weep for Jack Valenti and the MPAA. They already mentioned the DeCSS Distribution Contest in legal filings. I'm sorry if we're making it hard to sue the Internet. Maybe the next industry cartel with this idea will think twice about it.
- If you can't get into Pigdog Journal, try one of these mirror sites:
- Crackmonkey
- Cryptome
- Pottymouth
- ZGP
Thanks to everyone who's mirroring. Spread the love!This looks good, but it's not Open Source.
So, screw it.
As the old perl adage goes, "s/(?=c)ie/ei/".
As the old perl adage goes,
s/(?=c)ie/ei/