This is mainly so that if they proclaim "Reziac is a customer!" I can't sue them for mentioning my name and, in conjunction with that, displaying my trademark.
I do think it's a bit presumptive, and begging for PR trouble, to thereby ASSUME that this product is my "preferred web analytics package". For all they know, I might run several, and if *asked* my preference, it might be another one. Not good PR when the vendor makes one claim and the customer makes another. Hopefully they'll actually ASK customers before making silly proclamations about who prefers what.
[laughing] I too wasted an inordinate amount of time on bbsmates.com, wandering the BBSs I used so regularly that my fingers did their keystrokes without consulting my brain:)
My patience has gone to hell over the years too... seems the faster you can do whatever, the less time you wish to spend doing it, the worse so once you've experienced the faster version! Alas for me, I'm stuck on 26k dialup, with no alternatives. I get faster transfers from the BBS than from the ISP.:(
My sister has her very own T1 line at her work. (Where they think schlepping 4GB files around the company network is "normal".) She too is spoiled rotten... I'd settle for merely becoming a little stinky!!
I'm hoping Google will get rid of Urchin's ongoing bugs (as experienced by way of Earthlink's site stats doodad), such as the one where it will occasionally show you someone else's stats (and refuse to show you your own stats), or decide that this week, all your stats for this year total up to "zero". I've reported these bugs several times, without result.
Also, I most severely hope that Google will change the reporting function so it doesn't require javascript in the browser used to view the stats. Someone at Urchin once told me that they planned to do this, but it never happened.
I'm thinking that the problem with wifi is the same as with using encryption for regular internet email: sooner or later it'll be observed, and that it merely exists is like waving a banner proclaiming "I'M UP TO NO GOOD!" Better to avoid notice altogether. (If it reaches the point where all communications are tapped, including plain old POTS, we're fucked beyond where any private communications matter or exist anyway.)
Direct net access such as telnet would be a weakness, tho I suppose how severely depends what functions are available. It still isn't possible (at least on Wildcat) for J.Random User to snoop on someone else's private messages, but there is the issue that telnet itself goes via normal internet.
QWK by email is no more insecure than any internet email, but here we're assuming that all such email is snooped, so it's by definition insecure (and if encrypted, is a redflag per above).
I remember there being such a protocol as SLIP, which was somewhat akin to PPP. I don't remember it as being a BBS thing, rather for proto-ISPs (like The Well and LAFreenet) back when they all used proprietary interfaces. There may have been for-really BBS software that used it, but I never encountered any.
I hated Telegard/Renegade with a passion, and found PCBoard just barely tolerable, but I still love Wildcat, especially v4.x. It's up to v6.something now (and still maintained), tho I don't know how 6.x differs from v5.x (which added a variety of real internet-style functions). Prolly ought ask the sysop at Techware, where I see it every day. (telnet://techware.dynip.com -- it's actually grown since it became telnet-only)
BTW Wildcat is VERY secure; in fact I've never heard of a case of a WC4.x board being hacked. (I suppose it's happened, but not that I heard of, and back then I did try to keep track. It's very picky about keeping sysop and user access segregated, having all field lengths defined, etc.)
Yep, some boards were indeed cesspools, especially the chat boards -- Usenet and IRC flame wars and trash talk have nothing on the worst of the old BBS message bases. Phew!!
I ran into one of those wholly-anonymous boards once too, but I vaguely recall it was paid access only and a LD call to boot, so I didn't stick around. There were about 35 active boards in my local calling area (I maintained the active BBS list for my area) and always 3 or 4 that I used regularly, so I wasn't terribly motivated to shop elsewhere. I yakked a lot; I'm all-time #1 or #2 message poster on about a dozen BBSs.:)
I BBS'd for years with a 2400 baud modem, then with a 14.4... since 1997 they've all been a LD call for me, so I think very well of the advent of the 56k modem, and don't mind that trivial cheat.:)
One of my charity clients used a 1200 modem for a long time, and the nasty thing would often connect at 300 baud. You had to drive stakes to see if it was moving!
BTW if you haven't been to bbsmates.com, go there and look up your old mates! I'm listed there as "Rez", the more-usual form of my antique handle.
Hmm. Private wireless, as a sort of WAN involving wireless and regular phone lines as needed -- that might work (and may be more practical if large files are involved). However, anyone with a laptop can snoop for wireless communications right now, and while you can keep people out, AFAIK there's no way to make it *invisible*.
As to distributing a BBS among all its users (and speaking as a co-sysop-at-large), I don't see any practical way to do that with existing BBS software, and a big downside is that every function would require realtime access. That would negate one major advantage of BBS-style communications: you can do everything offline, and only need to be connected for relatively short periods and not necessarily on any schedule, thus not sufficient to draw attention even if phone records are examined. Since a BBS uses an ordinary voice line, only a wiretap can tell it's a data transfer and not a regular conversation.
Remember the base concept here is to keep *email* OFF the regular internet, INVISIBLE to Big Brother, and with NO point where internet-based surveillance can intrude on the users' security and privacy. We're not talking about distributing warez.:)
When I RTFA, my immediate thought was, "If they'll give me the shows I want, in a format I can use anywhere I want and archive however I please, I'll be happy to watch a few commercials, even ads between segments in the normal way for regular TV."
But better for keeping the ad content fresh, put the ads in the download client; that would be acceptable, and maybe even useful ("Buy the DVDs here!" and "Since you like Show XX, you may want to try Show ZZ too, to be offered [date].") This in fact would be a good place for clever TV-style ads that people might enjoy for their own sake. The client could even have both video and google-style ads.
Video ads would need to be mutable, tho -- meaning designed to get the message across without sound, since obviously no one wants to listen to ad blare all day long. How about video ads with user-selectable soundtracks, or even internet radio in the download client? If your ad method is both non-annoying and entertaining, we'll welcome it.
As an alternative model, there are plenty of shows I'd pay a buck or two for, if the quality was high enough. There's another point where ads in the download client could be useful: "This free download is merely SVCD quality. Want DVD quality downloads, for only a buck? click here."
OTOH, ephemeral, proprietary, or non-burnable copies are of no use to me (tho watermarking is fine), with or without advertising. If I'm going to this much bother, I want to be able to view the show whenever I like, on whatever device I prefer, and make a hardcopy archive whenever I need to. Otherwise I might as well buy the DVD up front... and for most shows, I just don't care enough to spend that much.
Better to prepare for panic, than to panic because you weren't prepared. Which doesn't mean you need to get all paranoid about it, nor that people should live in fear of imminent disaster. Rather, that when there is a known issue on the horizon, you should delineate the steps you'll take when and if cause for panic arrives (and when a certain percentage of the populace will indeed act like headless chickens). That way you can deal with it rather than being buried by it.
Yep. The **AA and Al Qaeda use essentially the same tactics; the main difference is one of degree (would you prefer a flogging, or shall we simply execute you?) But wait til some evil software from an **AA member finds its way into a hospital or some other critical infrastructure, there to become the back door for something truly malicious, and the distinction of property loss vs death may become at the very least, rather blurred.
Hmm... now that you mention it, it's certainly within the current legal climate for some moron to read a King novel, then sue King on the basis that his novel caused the moron to suffer fear and stress.
Upon resetting my tinfoil hat, I was moved to extrapolate this to a legal system where (per another/. discussion re new legislation that would morph civil actions into criminal prosecutions) King could be incarcerated as a terrorist, for causing such suffering in his hapless readers.
After all, it's not fair to blame the reader just because they didn't have sense enough to put down the book before they hurt themselves. So it must be the author's fault!
Bah, your remark is no longer nearly as funny as it was without metallic headgear:/
About the only point to add is that gun makers *have* been sued after people were shot, tho I don't recall how that came out. Absurd regardless. But we're in an age of blame the tool and shoot the messenger.:(
Re this sense of entitlement, I'm not talking about wanting to be being fairly paid for what folks use. I'm talking about the type who thinks that because they made it, you should buy it, and if you don't, you must be stealing it, so they ought to be paid anyway. I do actually know some people who think that way; unfortunately, it seems that the **AA mentality is much the same.
While having to do some basic checking isn't an unreasonable requirement -- most ordinary users won't.
If (as you mention in a reply below) a machine is labeled "for Windows", a savvy user might conclude that it contains components like winmodems, thus is generally unsuitable for alt-OSs.
But if it's a generic PC, even experienced folk tend to assume that it will run any PC-compatible OS without complaint. Hence one expects drivers to be available (and included), and it comes as an unpleasant surprise when they're not.
I remember in the early days of WinNT, how limited the hardware compatibility was, and all the screaming about poor or absent drivers. And the common retort of the day was "check the HCL first!" Sound familiar?:)
Linux has become a lot more random-hardware friendly over time, tho. Occasionally I throw a few disties at whatever machine has nothing better to do, and in the past 6 or 7 years it's gone from "can't find a bloody thing" to "almost everything works". Progress!
For email from outside sources -- well, most halfway modern BBS software (defined as 1994 or later) can do internet email via UUCP, and the more recent incarnations use TCP/IP (and can do QWK/REP by regular email).
Otherwise, and for maximum snoop-proofing against external forces, one has to be willing to make the phone call to transfer mail (both by users and BBS-to-BBS), which may involve a long distance call, and as with FIDO, often a considerable delay as packets hop from one BBS to the next. (As the old tagline goes -- "Internet: modem and phone lines. FidoNet: tin cans and string.":)
There's no reason you can't encrypt your posts on the BBS, making them secure even from the sysop; in fact this used to be the norm on some BBSs, and I've seen one where it was *required*. You could either UUEncode the encrypted message and post it as ASCII, or attach an encrypted ZIP to an empty message, depending on the capabilities of the BBS software. To the BBS, it's just another message or attachment, it doesn't care that it's not in plain language. So the problem of snoop-proofing against the sysop is already solved (provided he allows encrypted messages. If he doesn't, he's probably not trustworthy anyway!)
The concept of a "dumb router" may have merit, tho, to prevent any human from seeing where a given packet comes from or goes to. Of course, you can still get caught when you log in, but there again -- in the old days, some BBSs *required* that you use a unique alias and never post your real name. If you're really paranoid, use a pay phone (thus not a number traceable to you) and one of those gadgets that leech to the mouthpiece. (I've got one that does 28.8 -- they're still made, for laptop use in hotels that don't have phone jacks. Hopelessly slow for files, but adequate for QWK/REP packets.)
There indeed was a problem with sysops losing interest or going off in a huff, but three that I've used had track records of 17 yrs, 10 yrs, and 11 yrs (and counting). So it's not a universal issue. Small ISPs go tits-up about as often as BBSs did.
BTW I still use two BBSs daily -- one via telnet, the other as QWK/REP by email. And should both die... well, I already own Wildcat.:)
I've been saying for some time now that for secure email, an old-fashioned dialup BBS, with a known and trusted sysop, is one helluva lot more secure than any internet-based email.
The BBS's sysop is god, he sees all. But on a dialup BBS, no one other than the sender and recipient can see the content of a given local email. (Barring subpoena, of course.)
Conversely, any node along the internet could intercept and have its way with regular internet email packets.
Nasty thought: you've got BBS software on your computer? obviously you're supporting terrorism, by offering email that can't be snooped from outside the system! Off to jail with you!!
Something I've noticed among people I know well enough to judge: content producers (writers, music artists, whatever) who believe that they are *entitled* to an income from their work (whether it's liked by anyone or not) are the same ones who believe that ALL filesharing is evil.
Conversely, artists who are thrilled to have fans at all seem to take the opposite tack, and don't mind harmless sharing; indeed, they recognise that exposure is cheap advertising and ultimately leads to a larger paying fanbase.
In short, the root of the problem seems to be a sense of entitlement: I own this content, and by damn you are all going to pay me if you so much as glance at it, whether you liked my content or not!!
That's a scary point... indeed, putting a "save as" function in software could be (if suitably stretched by DRM/**AA interests) defined as circumvention of copyright. The programmer gets in trouble for implementing it, and the user gets in trouble for using it.
Nasty thought: future PCs where by law, only certain approved software is in permanent storage. Everything else is in volatile storage, to prevent "unauthorised copying". Welcome back to the world of the diskless workstation.
Here's an example from my own life: a few years ago I tripped over an artist on the old mp3.com, liked the first download, pulled a few more MP3s, liked those even better, so I downloaded the entire set.
Since then I've been in contact with the artist, and he's even emailed me one of his new MP3s.
Now he's got a CD for sale on cdbaby.com, and even tho it's priced at the high end ($17) and doesn't include most of my favourites, I'm going to buy a copy, because not only do I like his music, he's earned it by his own generosity toward his fans.
And I know exactly what I'm getting. I've already heard every song on the CD, as many times as I wanted. What the labels don't seem to realise (tho they should, given that radio play requests are tracked!) is that familiarity and addiction lead to sales, especially if we can gratify the whim while the urge is at its peak.
"Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for."
That's a far more frightening insight than you probably intended. Conceptually, it could be extended to any civil action. Upon polishing my tinfoil hat, I had this thought:
Someone obtains a civil judgment against you, and the upshot is that you must pay him a lot of money. But you simply don't have the funds. Now what -- do you get marched off to debtor's prison??
I had exactly the same thought as the parent post -- the day is fast arriving when even possessing non-redistributable content is too risky.
I can see this being extended to a form of unreasonable search and seizure: Wandering the net, you find yourself on a filesharing site. You nose around a bit, then leave without downloading anything. A week later, the copyright nazis arrive at your door (armed with a warrant) and inform you that since your IP address was seen on a P2P site, you are automatically a suspect. They arrest you, confiscate your computer, and march the lot off to detention. Now it's up to you to prove your innocence.
But... you've got a few ripped MP3s on your computer, from a CD you legally "own" (well, that you licensed from the record label) which in itself goes to show intent to distribute, as does possession of the tools to rip said MP3s.
Now you're in REAL shit.
Oh, and if you're a resident of a country where the DRM laws prohibit even discussing circumvention (frex, Finland if a current bill passes) you can't complain to anyone about this treatment, not even your lawyer.
Yeah, right now this scenario seems an hallucination induced by a too-snug tinfoil hat. But it's certainly the direction things are headed.
And given all that, out of sheer self-preservation it would behoove folk to buy ONLY those materials produced by bands and studios that specifically ALLOW free redistribution of ripped copies. (Or cloned copies if the artist so allows.)
Note that I specified "ripped copies" and "free redistribution", NOT unauthorized hardcopies (ie. counterfeits intended for sale without payment to the artist), and NOT pay-to-download without paying the artists (PTD with micropayments to the artist should naturally be encouraged). Those activities should indeed be prosecuted, as they would be for any other counterfeit goods.
Slashdot Mirror
This is mainly so that if they proclaim "Reziac is a customer!" I can't sue them for mentioning my name and, in conjunction with that, displaying my trademark.
I do think it's a bit presumptive, and begging for PR trouble, to thereby ASSUME that this product is my "preferred web analytics package". For all they know, I might run several, and if *asked* my preference, it might be another one. Not good PR when the vendor makes one claim and the customer makes another. Hopefully they'll actually ASK customers before making silly proclamations about who prefers what.
[laughing] I too wasted an inordinate amount of time on bbsmates.com, wandering the BBSs I used so regularly that my fingers did their keystrokes without consulting my brain :)
:(
My patience has gone to hell over the years too... seems the faster you can do whatever, the less time you wish to spend doing it, the worse so once you've experienced the faster version! Alas for me, I'm stuck on 26k dialup, with no alternatives. I get faster transfers from the BBS than from the ISP.
My sister has her very own T1 line at her work. (Where they think schlepping 4GB files around the company network is "normal".) She too is spoiled rotten... I'd settle for merely becoming a little stinky!!
I'm hoping Google will get rid of Urchin's ongoing bugs (as experienced by way of Earthlink's site stats doodad), such as the one where it will occasionally show you someone else's stats (and refuse to show you your own stats), or decide that this week, all your stats for this year total up to "zero". I've reported these bugs several times, without result.
Also, I most severely hope that Google will change the reporting function so it doesn't require javascript in the browser used to view the stats. Someone at Urchin once told me that they planned to do this, but it never happened.
A weird imagination is a plus :)
:)
I'm thinking that the problem with wifi is the same as with using encryption for regular internet email: sooner or later it'll be observed, and that it merely exists is like waving a banner proclaiming "I'M UP TO NO GOOD!" Better to avoid notice altogether. (If it reaches the point where all communications are tapped, including plain old POTS, we're fucked beyond where any private communications matter or exist anyway.)
Direct net access such as telnet would be a weakness, tho I suppose how severely depends what functions are available. It still isn't possible (at least on Wildcat) for J.Random User to snoop on someone else's private messages, but there is the issue that telnet itself goes via normal internet.
QWK by email is no more insecure than any internet email, but here we're assuming that all such email is snooped, so it's by definition insecure (and if encrypted, is a redflag per above).
Are we paranoid yet?
I remember there being such a protocol as SLIP, which was somewhat akin to PPP. I don't remember it as being a BBS thing, rather for proto-ISPs (like The Well and LAFreenet) back when they all used proprietary interfaces. There may have been for-really BBS software that used it, but I never encountered any.
:)
... since 1997 they've all been a LD call for me, so I think very well of the advent of the 56k modem, and don't mind that trivial cheat. :)
I hated Telegard/Renegade with a passion, and found PCBoard just barely tolerable, but I still love Wildcat, especially v4.x. It's up to v6.something now (and still maintained), tho I don't know how 6.x differs from v5.x (which added a variety of real internet-style functions). Prolly ought ask the sysop at Techware, where I see it every day. (telnet://techware.dynip.com -- it's actually grown since it became telnet-only)
BTW Wildcat is VERY secure; in fact I've never heard of a case of a WC4.x board being hacked. (I suppose it's happened, but not that I heard of, and back then I did try to keep track. It's very picky about keeping sysop and user access segregated, having all field lengths defined, etc.)
Yep, some boards were indeed cesspools, especially the chat boards -- Usenet and IRC flame wars and trash talk have nothing on the worst of the old BBS message bases. Phew!!
I ran into one of those wholly-anonymous boards once too, but I vaguely recall it was paid access only and a LD call to boot, so I didn't stick around. There were about 35 active boards in my local calling area (I maintained the active BBS list for my area) and always 3 or 4 that I used regularly, so I wasn't terribly motivated to shop elsewhere. I yakked a lot; I'm all-time #1 or #2 message poster on about a dozen BBSs.
I BBS'd for years with a 2400 baud modem, then with a 14.4
One of my charity clients used a 1200 modem for a long time, and the nasty thing would often connect at 300 baud. You had to drive stakes to see if it was moving!
BTW if you haven't been to bbsmates.com, go there and look up your old mates! I'm listed there as "Rez", the more-usual form of my antique handle.
Hmm. Private wireless, as a sort of WAN involving wireless and regular phone lines as needed -- that might work (and may be more practical if large files are involved). However, anyone with a laptop can snoop for wireless communications right now, and while you can keep people out, AFAIK there's no way to make it *invisible*.
:)
As to distributing a BBS among all its users (and speaking as a co-sysop-at-large), I don't see any practical way to do that with existing BBS software, and a big downside is that every function would require realtime access. That would negate one major advantage of BBS-style communications: you can do everything offline, and only need to be connected for relatively short periods and not necessarily on any schedule, thus not sufficient to draw attention even if phone records are examined. Since a BBS uses an ordinary voice line, only a wiretap can tell it's a data transfer and not a regular conversation.
Remember the base concept here is to keep *email* OFF the regular internet, INVISIBLE to Big Brother, and with NO point where internet-based surveillance can intrude on the users' security and privacy. We're not talking about distributing warez.
When I RTFA, my immediate thought was, "If they'll give me the shows I want, in a format I can use anywhere I want and archive however I please, I'll be happy to watch a few commercials, even ads between segments in the normal way for regular TV."
But better for keeping the ad content fresh, put the ads in the download client; that would be acceptable, and maybe even useful ("Buy the DVDs here!" and "Since you like Show XX, you may want to try Show ZZ too, to be offered [date].") This in fact would be a good place for clever TV-style ads that people might enjoy for their own sake. The client could even have both video and google-style ads.
Video ads would need to be mutable, tho -- meaning designed to get the message across without sound, since obviously no one wants to listen to ad blare all day long. How about video ads with user-selectable soundtracks, or even internet radio in the download client? If your ad method is both non-annoying and entertaining, we'll welcome it.
As an alternative model, there are plenty of shows I'd pay a buck or two for, if the quality was high enough. There's another point where ads in the download client could be useful: "This free download is merely SVCD quality. Want DVD quality downloads, for only a buck? click here."
OTOH, ephemeral, proprietary, or non-burnable copies are of no use to me (tho watermarking is fine), with or without advertising. If I'm going to this much bother, I want to be able to view the show whenever I like, on whatever device I prefer, and make a hardcopy archive whenever I need to. Otherwise I might as well buy the DVD up front... and for most shows, I just don't care enough to spend that much.
98% of all the people who've ever been born are already dead.
So... chances are, you're dead!!
Better to prepare for panic, than to panic because you weren't prepared. Which doesn't mean you need to get all paranoid about it, nor that people should live in fear of imminent disaster. Rather, that when there is a known issue on the horizon, you should delineate the steps you'll take when and if cause for panic arrives (and when a certain percentage of the populace will indeed act like headless chickens). That way you can deal with it rather than being buried by it.
Yep. The **AA and Al Qaeda use essentially the same tactics; the main difference is one of degree (would you prefer a flogging, or shall we simply execute you?) But wait til some evil software from an **AA member finds its way into a hospital or some other critical infrastructure, there to become the back door for something truly malicious, and the distinction of property loss vs death may become at the very least, rather blurred.
"Does that mean Stephen King is a terrorist?"
/. discussion re new legislation that would morph civil actions into criminal prosecutions) King could be incarcerated as a terrorist, for causing such suffering in his hapless readers.
:/
Hmm... now that you mention it, it's certainly within the current legal climate for some moron to read a King novel, then sue King on the basis that his novel caused the moron to suffer fear and stress.
Upon resetting my tinfoil hat, I was moved to extrapolate this to a legal system where (per another
After all, it's not fair to blame the reader just because they didn't have sense enough to put down the book before they hurt themselves. So it must be the author's fault!
Bah, your remark is no longer nearly as funny as it was without metallic headgear
Yep, you about covered it from end to end.
:(
About the only point to add is that gun makers *have* been sued after people were shot, tho I don't recall how that came out. Absurd regardless. But we're in an age of blame the tool and shoot the messenger.
Re this sense of entitlement, I'm not talking about wanting to be being fairly paid for what folks use. I'm talking about the type who thinks that because they made it, you should buy it, and if you don't, you must be stealing it, so they ought to be paid anyway. I do actually know some people who think that way; unfortunately, it seems that the **AA mentality is much the same.
While having to do some basic checking isn't an unreasonable requirement -- most ordinary users won't.
:)
If (as you mention in a reply below) a machine is labeled "for Windows", a savvy user might conclude that it contains components like winmodems, thus is generally unsuitable for alt-OSs.
But if it's a generic PC, even experienced folk tend to assume that it will run any PC-compatible OS without complaint. Hence one expects drivers to be available (and included), and it comes as an unpleasant surprise when they're not.
I remember in the early days of WinNT, how limited the hardware compatibility was, and all the screaming about poor or absent drivers. And the common retort of the day was "check the HCL first!" Sound familiar?
Linux has become a lot more random-hardware friendly over time, tho. Occasionally I throw a few disties at whatever machine has nothing better to do, and in the past 6 or 7 years it's gone from "can't find a bloody thing" to "almost everything works". Progress!
Oh yes, and I remember when folks would pool the cost of the annual subscription fee and share out the ratio'd bytes.
:)
Do you feel old too?
For email from outside sources -- well, most halfway modern BBS software (defined as 1994 or later) can do internet email via UUCP, and the more recent incarnations use TCP/IP (and can do QWK/REP by regular email).
:)
:)
Otherwise, and for maximum snoop-proofing against external forces, one has to be willing to make the phone call to transfer mail (both by users and BBS-to-BBS), which may involve a long distance call, and as with FIDO, often a considerable delay as packets hop from one BBS to the next. (As the old tagline goes -- "Internet: modem and phone lines. FidoNet: tin cans and string."
There's no reason you can't encrypt your posts on the BBS, making them secure even from the sysop; in fact this used to be the norm on some BBSs, and I've seen one where it was *required*. You could either UUEncode the encrypted message and post it as ASCII, or attach an encrypted ZIP to an empty message, depending on the capabilities of the BBS software. To the BBS, it's just another message or attachment, it doesn't care that it's not in plain language. So the problem of snoop-proofing against the sysop is already solved (provided he allows encrypted messages. If he doesn't, he's probably not trustworthy anyway!)
The concept of a "dumb router" may have merit, tho, to prevent any human from seeing where a given packet comes from or goes to. Of course, you can still get caught when you log in, but there again -- in the old days, some BBSs *required* that you use a unique alias and never post your real name. If you're really paranoid, use a pay phone (thus not a number traceable to you) and one of those gadgets that leech to the mouthpiece. (I've got one that does 28.8 -- they're still made, for laptop use in hotels that don't have phone jacks. Hopelessly slow for files, but adequate for QWK/REP packets.)
There indeed was a problem with sysops losing interest or going off in a huff, but three that I've used had track records of 17 yrs, 10 yrs, and 11 yrs (and counting). So it's not a universal issue. Small ISPs go tits-up about as often as BBSs did.
BTW I still use two BBSs daily -- one via telnet, the other as QWK/REP by email. And should both die... well, I already own Wildcat.
So you're saying that the **AA is promoting terrorism? ;)
Hmm. Is there a lobbyist in the house? we need you to elucidate that concept in Washington.
I've been saying for some time now that for secure email, an old-fashioned dialup BBS, with a known and trusted sysop, is one helluva lot more secure than any internet-based email.
The BBS's sysop is god, he sees all. But on a dialup BBS, no one other than the sender and recipient can see the content of a given local email. (Barring subpoena, of course.)
Conversely, any node along the internet could intercept and have its way with regular internet email packets.
Nasty thought: you've got BBS software on your computer? obviously you're supporting terrorism, by offering email that can't be snooped from outside the system! Off to jail with you!!
Something I've noticed among people I know well enough to judge: content producers (writers, music artists, whatever) who believe that they are *entitled* to an income from their work (whether it's liked by anyone or not) are the same ones who believe that ALL filesharing is evil.
Conversely, artists who are thrilled to have fans at all seem to take the opposite tack, and don't mind harmless sharing; indeed, they recognise that exposure is cheap advertising and ultimately leads to a larger paying fanbase.
In short, the root of the problem seems to be a sense of entitlement: I own this content, and by damn you are all going to pay me if you so much as glance at it, whether you liked my content or not!!
That's a scary point... indeed, putting a "save as" function in software could be (if suitably stretched by DRM/**AA interests) defined as circumvention of copyright. The programmer gets in trouble for implementing it, and the user gets in trouble for using it.
Nasty thought: future PCs where by law, only certain approved software is in permanent storage. Everything else is in volatile storage, to prevent "unauthorised copying". Welcome back to the world of the diskless workstation.
Hmm... well, perhaps so. Certainly would seem the case here in SoCal!
Tho as an AC also replied to me...
"Qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment..."
Exactly so.
Here's an example from my own life: a few years ago I tripped over an artist on the old mp3.com, liked the first download, pulled a few more MP3s, liked those even better, so I downloaded the entire set.
Since then I've been in contact with the artist, and he's even emailed me one of his new MP3s.
Now he's got a CD for sale on cdbaby.com, and even tho it's priced at the high end ($17) and doesn't include most of my favourites, I'm going to buy a copy, because not only do I like his music, he's earned it by his own generosity toward his fans.
And I know exactly what I'm getting. I've already heard every song on the CD, as many times as I wanted. What the labels don't seem to realise (tho they should, given that radio play requests are tracked!) is that familiarity and addiction lead to sales, especially if we can gratify the whim while the urge is at its peak.
Simpler yet: just lock everyone inside a Walmart Superstore!
"Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for."
That's a far more frightening insight than you probably intended. Conceptually, it could be extended to any civil action. Upon polishing my tinfoil hat, I had this thought:
Someone obtains a civil judgment against you, and the upshot is that you must pay him a lot of money. But you simply don't have the funds. Now what -- do you get marched off to debtor's prison??
Not possible, you cry? Too farfetched?? Erm...
http://www.fathers.ca/debtors_prison1.htm
I had exactly the same thought as the parent post -- the day is fast arriving when even possessing non-redistributable content is too risky.
I can see this being extended to a form of unreasonable search and seizure: Wandering the net, you find yourself on a filesharing site. You nose around a bit, then leave without downloading anything. A week later, the copyright nazis arrive at your door (armed with a warrant) and inform you that since your IP address was seen on a P2P site, you are automatically a suspect. They arrest you, confiscate your computer, and march the lot off to detention. Now it's up to you to prove your innocence.
But... you've got a few ripped MP3s on your computer, from a CD you legally "own" (well, that you licensed from the record label) which in itself goes to show intent to distribute, as does possession of the tools to rip said MP3s.
Now you're in REAL shit.
Oh, and if you're a resident of a country where the DRM laws prohibit even discussing circumvention (frex, Finland if a current bill passes) you can't complain to anyone about this treatment, not even your lawyer.
Yeah, right now this scenario seems an hallucination induced by a too-snug tinfoil hat. But it's certainly the direction things are headed.
And given all that, out of sheer self-preservation it would behoove folk to buy ONLY those materials produced by bands and studios that specifically ALLOW free redistribution of ripped copies. (Or cloned copies if the artist so allows.)
Note that I specified "ripped copies" and "free redistribution", NOT unauthorized hardcopies (ie. counterfeits intended for sale without payment to the artist), and NOT pay-to-download without paying the artists (PTD with micropayments to the artist should naturally be encouraged). Those activities should indeed be prosecuted, as they would be for any other counterfeit goods.