And you, sir, are a fool. If I may, allow me to attempt to pull your key points out of this morass of filth.
-- Everone in the county has access to a massive library of music...
Completely, 100% untrue. I'd go so far as to say that I know of NO ONE that has true access. For every ONE song I want to actually listen to repeatedly, I have to give your wonderful Borders 20 bucks for a CD that is filled with songs that I didn't want. Suppose I want to go home with the day's Top 100 Hits after hearing them on the radio. Your incredible mythical massive library of music is gonna charge me around TWO GRAND for that. You're gonna have to work a heck of a lot harder to convince me how this is possibly good. Don't sit there and make up terms like high tech elite when your own system caters to the economically elite. Or perhaps you'd like to tell me how exactly the Borders in your middle-class suburban neighborhood is distributing this massive library of music to inner-city kids that may have trouble just scraping up lunch money?
-- There's no viable alternative...
Hello?? Well golly gee then what are all these lawsuits from the RIAA about? For a completely nonviable alternative, they sure seem to be awful worried about the INTERNET. Why don't you go tell them it sucks for distributing music and they can quit spending all this money on their lawyers trying to get people to quit using it?
-- Only the tech elite will have access...
I'll even answer this one for you. Everybody in America more or less has access to a public library right? Let me spell this out: Computer. Internet connection. CD Burner. Blank CD's, 3 or 4 bucks a pop. Want music distributed to everyone? There ya go. Profits from the blanks can help support the library or go to the starving artist fund since you seem to concerned about them.
-- Last one, funding the artists.
I know I just mentioned an answer to this, but your point isn't even valid. Artists don't need any extra funding. The ones that are actually good get by just fine. The ones that aren't can damn well get a second job. Besides, even that is FAR better than signing their life away with a greedy record company. Have you seen the terms of those contracts?? All those little strings attached do nothing but fund the greed of the whole industry. It's astonishing to me that anyone thinks the actions of the RIAA are defensible. How can you possibly talk about a need to fund artists when the existing industry solution to fund them practically forces them into slavery?
So let's see, we'll destroy the old, corrupt, greedy system and replace it with one that truly does provide music for free to everyone. Yes my friend, that does make the world a better place.
Normally I wouldn't reply, but when an AC gets modded this high... their effective method of providing music... They've effectively inflated prices artificially and then fixed them in place. By having virtually 100% control over CD vendors they force everyone to pay 15-20 bucks for the latest cookie-cutter crap that barely qualifies as music, let alone art.
...tech elite... Real cute. I'm assuming the reverse of that would be the people that are so poor as to not have computers or have any friends with access to computers. You would have this non "tech elite" scrape together their cash in order to pay for albums that are priced at least 10x what they're worth? I call foul. Perhaps you're a bit worried that the "tech elite" could reproduce and burn CD's and maybe sell them to the non-elites for 3 or 4 dollars instead?
...doing "real" work... The RIAA quite arrogantly presumes that all artists are entitled to insane amounts of money regardless of the artistic or musical value of their work. Do you think Britney Spears truly cares about music as an art form? It's an artificially created market whose only purpose is to rake in cash. A true musician spends as much of their own time as they need to and focuses on music, not on making money.
The fact that we even have a term "music industry" just shows how much we've shifted focus from actually creating innovative new art over to greedily making as much cash as possible. In 50 years what will this have done to our culture?
Yes, destroying the RIAA and the mind-boggling greed that it stands for might actually make the world a better place. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Think about it.
I'm sorry, but Critical Mass is one of the most assbackwards stupid things I've ever witnessed in my life. Protests of this sort are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant whiny idiots trying to get attention.
Share the road? Absolutely we'll share it. Just keep this in mind. What percentage of taxpayers that paid for the road drive cars vs. ride bicycles? Sharing works both ways, and roads are primarily designed to suit the needs of drivers.
Want to talk about what the law states? I drive to work every day. I see bikers every day. Every single one I have EVER seen in the city breaks traffic laws CONSTANTLY, no exception. You want fair treatment? Quit running red lights, quit dodging through three lanes of traffic at once, quit riding inbetween lanes of traffic. Sure, some drivers are careless and malicious. Every single biker I've ever seen has a completely blatant disregard for traffic laws. You want to co-exist peacefully in that environment? Start following the F-ing rules.
One more point, and this is the thing that totally blows my mind about these damn fool protests. What the hell are you trying to accomplish with it? Draw attention to your cause? Make some kind of statement? Well congratulations asshole, you've done that. You've got a whole city full of commuters aware that there's a group of bikers out there with issues, AND THEY'RE PISSED AS HELL AT THEM. You've got an issue and you want supporters? Well great, there's two steps to that.
1) Raise awareness. 2) Convince people to support you.
I know this may be a shocking revelation, but it's gonna be pretty hard to accomplish #2 when your method for achieving #1 pisses off 99% of the general population.
People, pull your heads out of your asses. Don't participate in these types of protests, it only fans the flames.
Just because for whatever political reasons some rules have been written down on paper does NOT make something wrong.
I submit to you that when 99% of the population drives at a safe and efficient speed for the given road they are on, and that speed has a tendency to be above the posted "limit", then that makes the limit itself wrong.
That is the definition of how a democracy functions.
As an experienced EQ player, I must say, "Pbptptpbptptppbptptpt" to that nonsense.
Well, as another very experienced EQ player, I must say that while twinking might be "accepted", it is not liked, nor is it beneficial to the game. For starters, the only reason it's accepted is that it's possible and legal to do it within the current game structure and rules. Therefore, those that are against it drop into the "well, the game allows, it, there's nothing I can do about it" mentality. That doesn't in any way mean that twinking doesn't still suck. Not to mention that it unfairly rewards players that have multiple accounts, as well as unbalances gameplay in general.
osgeek, please don't tell me that you play on Innoruuk and there's any chance that I know you. please.:)
Not to be intentionally mean or anything, but I really do believe that the little bit of an argument that you have is (as I mentioned before), selfish and immature. It ignores the larger social and economic consequences of using negligible, almost imaginiary, rights infringement arguments to demolish the greater good. While completely willing to demolish that greater good, you have the nerve to accuse those wiser than you of being sheep giving in to bullies. They're not bullies if they're just protecting what's theirs, they're just companies (made up of people just like us) trying to make a reasonable profit for a service that they provide.
Alright, been out drinking all night, but whatever. Let's see here, I think we're making some progress. You're talking about "demolishing a greater good". Can you be more specific about this? What exactly is being demolished, and how exactly am I demolishing it with my point of view?
Making a reasonable profit? You're gonna have to back that up with specific numbers, and I don't mean bullshit like Sammy Smith in Nevada cost us $500 million this year with his Internet sales of DTV piracy equipment. Exactly how much of a profit is DTV already making? I'm willing to bet 1) it's already pretty damn "reasonable" and 2) the actual impact that so-called piracy has is completely marginal.
Companies "made up of people like us"? I hardly think so. Or at least, I'll have to respectfully ask you to exclude me from that, because I'm not an asshole. Don't get me wrong, I think DTV has a wonderful concept, provides an incredible service to tons of people and has a really great chance at succeeding. Up til recently I'd been trying to figure out how to fit it into my budget. At the moment, I'm sorry but the company is being run by assholes, and I've lost all respect for it. If I or someone like me worked for DTV, I'd hand everyone in the company a giant-sized dose of Reality(tm) and we'd drop these stupid lawsuits and work on bettering our encryption to stay ahead of hackers. I'm forward-thinking enough and wise enough to realize that business models based on a constantly changing and evolving technology NEED to also evolve themselves, or else they will become obsolete and unprofitable.
Last point, "protecting what's theirs". I'm sorry, but you're helping to perpetuate an assumption that is absolutely incorrect. By broadcasting to everyone over a public medium, DTV is GIVING AWAY these transmissions. They no longer have ANY legitimate argument by which to claim that it's "theirs". The idea of having any ability whatsoever to protect something that you've already freely given away is completely asinine.
In truth, I'd love to work for DTV and work on kick-ass encryption schemes. I think it'd be a tremendously rewarding and fun job, knowing that I'm in competition against a mass of real human opponents, each working to one-up the other. It'd be a great time. But at this point, I never would, and DTV loses all my personal knowledge and insight into possible upgrades to their systems, because I'm frankly PISSED at their heavy-handed, idiotic tactics in attempting to deal with a problem that they've created and handed to themselves.
You know, the scary thing is I'll bet you anything some DTV maggots are already tracing down any track of AgentTim3 they can find on the web, to see if I've been buying up smart card writers or any such things. I mean, I've been arguing against them all day long, so certainly I must be pirating their transmissions too.
One thing I don't see posted here is any mention of the tactics DTV uses in tracking down people that they "think" "might" have bought equipment that could be used to circumvent blah blah blah...but I'm sure they're not doing anything illegal or immoral. They're rich and so I trust them.:)
No they're not. You don't have any right to use a service that you have not paid for, or otherwise secured permission to use.
Our country was founded on the idea that we're FREE. Freedom means I can do whatever I want when it's not infringing on other people's freedom. Me sitting in my house with a bunch of circuit boards I threw together watching satellite TV that is conveniently being beamed to me does NOT infringe upon anyone else whatsover. You, sir, do not have the right to take the freedom to do that away from me.
Police: If AgentTim3 didn't want me to find out he had a meth lab in his basement without obtaining a search warrant, he shouldn't have allowed the heat from his lab to irradiate outside at me!
For your sake, I hope you don't ever use a cell phone. After all, once your signal encroaches on my property, I'm gonna listen in damnit, and there's nothing you can do.
Am I supposed to cry now? Go for it, bud. The NSA already does anyhow. You're right, there's nothing I can do. Have fun.
Consider this: DTV is really really aggressively chasing down hackers, which is causing them a lot of bad press, fueling arguments such as this, etc. It really can't make that much difference to their bottom line that a small percentage of people are doing this. I mean, those $500 million numbers are totally made up. Why are they pushing so hard? What are they afraid of? Well, here's an idea:
Is DTV liable for a countersuit uner the DMCA?
Consider this, (1) the existence of hackers proves that DTV encryption technology is breakable and that this knowledge is in the public domain.
(2) DTV, aware of this fact, continues to broadcast their signal to every single person in the US.
Essentially this means that they are knowingly distributing copyrighted works (movies) and other TV programs for free to the entire country. Gosh, that sounds a lot like what Napster was doing. I wonder if that's something they could get in trouble for...?:)
Please. Who's fucking who over here? "the Man" as you say is busy sending threatening letters to anyone who was unfortunate enough to buy a smart-card writer online where DTV can find out about it. 3500 bucks to settle, or you're looking at 5 years jail time / $500K fine. Why do you think people are angry and call the "big bad corporation" lots of nasty names? DTV's not playing nice, they could drop all the lawsuits, quit wasting their time chasing around 1% of the people, and make it enough work to hack their signals that it'd be 0.0001% that actually bother to do it. DTV has only turned themselves into "the Man" with their Nazi tactics.
Anyway, it's the whole concept that scares me to death. You're right, I wouldn't be aware of the EM radiation. What you're saying is, DTV sends something into my house that I have no knowledge of, then abuses legislation and wants to fine me or toss me in jail if I discover this intrusion and try to do anything with it? What other things am I "not aware of" that I used to have the right to do, and are slowly being taken away behind my back? It's a dangerous and slippery slope, my friend.
I doubt you have to worry about people being swayed, I'm simply stunned at the number of people here that are so willing to hand over control without a second thought.
So what's your deal, I don't understand why you're fighting so hard. You work for DTV? Have the service, pay for it, jealous of hackers? Do you really honestly believe they're in danger of going under because of this? Or just like to argue and play Devil's advocate?
...that would completely destroy the entertainment and informational content system that most of us use and enjoy daily.
Wow. I'm glad you're getting your daily dose of DTV/Congress-recommended vitamins, minerals, and spoon-fed monkey piss. That's a load of incendiary DTV propaganda. From what I understand, there's no magic "black box" like there is for cable, they change codes regularly and it requires fairly constant web research and updating whatever equipment you're using to get the signal. There's no chance in hell the majority of people are going to put up with that, the same 99% of people that pay for it now are gonna keep paying for it forever. DTV would certainly have the capability to keep several steps ahead of the hackers if they'd quit blowing money on lawyers harassing innocent people and use it to advance their technology.
make a buck unless they use perfect encryption with idealized technology is just way wrong and should be fought vigorously.
No, what should be fought vigorously is large evil stupid corporations that make a bunch of bucks using a particular technology, and then whine, cry, sue people, and infringe upon personal freedoms when technological progress renders their service unprofitable. DTV chose to deliver their service over a public medium. They knew it was publicly available, otherwise they wouldn't have encrypted it at all, now would they? They do NOT have the right to cry foul and run to the courts simply because their obsolete technology allows the public to view their transmissions. The onus is 100% on DTV to keep funding their R&D efforts to stay ahead of the technology curve. If they can't cut it and go out of business, well then they deserve it for having a stupid business model.
Why are you determined to take it and show everyone else how to take it... but only if you don't make a profit?
Ok, one, I don't give half a damn about DTV or its content because it's mindless crap. What I absolutely care about are my personal rights and freedoms, and when I see a company stealing those from me, I get upset. DTV wants to live in my house and tell me what I can and can't do. That's complete, utter, total, flaming bullshit.
Two, the profit thing is a completely different argument and I'm not really concerned about it. Using DTV's proprietary (and presumably trademarked, patented, whatever) technology for my own profit is an entirely different can of worms, and IS most likely infringement. But don't try to use it as a stepping stone to take away my rights to what I can do, in my house, with what DTV is freely giving me.
SurfTheWorld has an excellent point here. This reminds me of that Heinlein quote:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
-Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
This is from 1939, and people still haven't gotten it. DTV has chosen to use a public medium to broadcast their signal. Well, signal-decryption technology has now grown to the point that people can view their broadcasts. So what do they do? Immediately turn to the courts, and try to screw people over and take away their rights. The fact that this outrageous behavior is not only tolerated but accepted amazes me. Whatever happened to inventors and entrepreneurs making money by virtue of the value of their products, rather than sueing the hell out of people?? DTV chose a public medium, now let's see. If they weren't aware that everyone was gonna get the signals, why'd they bother encrypting at all? No, they knew damn well, they spent a little money on encrypting it, and now when that's no good anymore, instead of spending some more money and making their service better, they're spending it on the courts.
I agree, I don't know why more people don't see it this way...
Umm, so maybe you should be able to resell that signal?
We just got into this at work too. Reselling is different. Dare I use this word on slashdot, but now I'm trying to profit off of DTV's invention. This is clearly a no-no.
The point is that for personal use, inside my house, I have (or should have) the right to do whatever I damn well please with whatever signals DTV is sending in there. That is my RIGHT, and I refuse to give it up because a large company is concerned about their bottom line. It's amazing to me how easily people are convinced to give up their freedoms when big bullies spin it the right way (and buy legislation).
...but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.
It's really not, though. Transmissions you receive should be your own property to do with as you want, unless there is some compelling reason against it. America was founded on freedom, and we better have damn good reasons to make laws that take freedom away.
In the examples you gave, listening to cell phones and using passive detection methods represent significant invasion of privacy. We therefore have laws against it, to protect people's rights. Also, there's a compelling interest in national security that it's illegal to listen to military channels. The right to privacy, and national security, supercedes the right to listen to those particular transmissions.
Now, DTV telling me I can't listen to their transmissions is an infringement on my basic rights. I'm fine with your other examples, I'll give up my right to listen because there are important reasons to do so.
Now. Please, please tell me where is the compelling reason to allow legislation that makes listening to DTV broadcasts illegal? All I smell is money. Lots and lots of money, purchasing laws. Wonderful place we live in.
Actually, you have no right to transmit on my cell phone or DTV's frequencies. And you're right about the wireless thing, but again that's transmitting on it. Different argument, dude. Sitting there and listening to it is perfectly fine, if you're broadcasting your wireless broadband through my house you better hope you've got good encryption because otherwise I'm watching the packets float by.
They are stealing, stealing stealing. and you want to make it ok, so you can too.
Actually, I don't have DTV, don't have any descramblers, and don't care to because I don't care to watch anything that's on. What I care about is not flopping over on the ground when big companies purchase legislation that takes my rights away so they can squeeze out more profits.
The point I was illustrating was not the impact of the transmission, it's the claim of ownership. It's ridiculous for me to claim that I still own those ping-pong balls after tossing 'em at you. It's equally ridiculous that DTV claims ownership on their signals and tries to tell me what I can or can't do with them.
The "you beamed your signals at me" argument is so invalid it hurts. Unless DirecTV is purposely directing its signals at your house, you have no legal standing to believe that DirecTV somehow wants you to use those signals.
What the hell are you talking about? DirecTV accidentally sent that satellite up?! Some tech "tripped" into a big red button and turned it on so it started broadcasting? They chose a public medium and started sending signals inside my house without my knowledge or consent. They're mine now, dammit.
How about if we look at the inverse. Would you like it if the police could use heat radiation to detect if there were any illegal activities being conducted in your house? Probably not, but if you don't want the police to do this, then you should've prevented the heat in your house from irradiating outside your walls and into the street.
Different argument, now we're talking about government invasion of privacy. Invalid.
If you think you somehow have the right to do what you wish with a transmission that somehow bounces off your domain, read up on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Or better yet, try and eavesdrop on U.S. military communications, and see how long your argument will hold up before you are tried for espionage.
Riiiiight. DirecTV transmissions are being compared to national security interests. Pure genius, pal. Guess that's why they call 'em Anonymous Cowards.
The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Ok, here's one for ya. I'm gonna start a company and become a competing service provider to DirecTV. I'm gonna deliver content to everyone's house, my delivery medium will be ping-pong balls. I'll have encrypted content written on each ping-pong ball, it'll probably be along the lines of "YUCK FOU".
I'm gonna start lobbing hundreds of these little suckers into your house every day. Now, if you touch them, pick them up, or even ATTEMPT to read the message on them (unless of course you've got a monthly contract with me to do so, low price of $49.99), you're breaking the law and I'm gonna put your ass in jail.
Geeeez. It makes my skin crawl to see how many people buy into D-TV's argument. It'd be laughable if they weren't so successful at brainwashing all you monkeys.
I don't understand why this is modded as funny. It's the truth.
The issue of "stealing" satellite TV is fundamentally different from that of cable TV. With cable, you can't get it in your house unless you sign a contract with a company to install it. Said contract stipulates that you won't decrypt it, so if you do so you're in breach of contract and you're wrong. Fine.
Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent. This isn't a joke people, if I set up equipment to turn those transmissions into usable TV signals, I've done nothing wrong. If I put up a website telling people about my accomplishments, I'm now liable for 5 years imprisonment and a $500K fine? That's the same punishment as criminally negligent manslaughter.
I find it sad that so many posters on here seem to agree that this is illegal and side with the giant money-grubbing corporation. The war is already lost.
There's no reason that you need to decrypt these signals, save for not having to pay for them.
Congratulations, you're helping give your rights away!
I don't have DirecTV, and have never signed any contracts or had any contact with that company. DirecTV stuck a satellite up in orbit that shoots signals at my house and through my own body every day. I don't NEED a reason to decrypt those signals, what I do with them is my personal business. Maybe I want to decrypt them and display the raw binary on a giant projection TV because I find it strangely erotic. Screw off, that's my own damn business.
When are you people going to quit eating the corporate philosophy, wake up, and start holding on to your rights?
Re:Initial expense too high...
on
Sim-Dud?
·
· Score: 1
Totally valid point, but the problem is that there's actually a pretty big public perception of what a monthly cost for an online game "should" be. Right now it's like 9.99, maybe there are some that are 11 or 12 bucks. But certainly no one's pushing 15 or 20. None of the game companies have yet wanted to cross the barrier and risk losing tons of sales.
Personally I think it'd be totally justified to do so. I look at the dollars-per-hour of entertainment ratio, and it's a total no-brainer. I used to play EQ upwards of 150 hours a month. I'd easily pay 50 bucks or way more per month for a game that was that enjoyable.
It's cheaper than movies, it's cheaper than bars, it's cheaper than clubbing, it's wayyy cheaper than crack! Whole problem is, people have preconceived notions about paying monthly, and are stupid, and companies are scared to jack prices.
Re:Would have to agree.. -More-
on
Sim-Dud?
·
· Score: 1
You're right about how certain people think about paying for online games. I used to think that myself. I think the majority of people out there that don't understand gaming or what goes into it would all default into the "why should I pay monthly" line of thinking.
But it's not like it's an obstacle that can't ever be overcome. Because people that think that way are, frankly, stupid. It just has to be marketed the right way so that they realize that they're being stupid and it's not a big deal to pay for it.
Example: Going to see The Two Towers. $9.00 ticket, $4.00 popcorn, for about 3 hours of entertainment. That's a month of The Sims Online! A conservative player can easily put in 80-100 hours online a month. Those that are really into it put in way more.
Another example: Let's see, night out shooting pool and drinking beers. Yep, fifty bucks easy. For about 4-5 hours of entertainment.
People are just stupid, once the marketdroids figure out points like that to emphasize the argument against monthly fees really goes in the toilet.
Slashdot Mirror
-- Everone in the county has access to a massive library of music...
Completely, 100% untrue. I'd go so far as to say that I know of NO ONE that has true access. For every ONE song I want to actually listen to repeatedly, I have to give your wonderful Borders 20 bucks for a CD that is filled with songs that I didn't want. Suppose I want to go home with the day's Top 100 Hits after hearing them on the radio. Your incredible mythical massive library of music is gonna charge me around TWO GRAND for that. You're gonna have to work a heck of a lot harder to convince me how this is possibly good. Don't sit there and make up terms like high tech elite when your own system caters to the economically elite. Or perhaps you'd like to tell me how exactly the Borders in your middle-class suburban neighborhood is distributing this massive library of music to inner-city kids that may have trouble just scraping up lunch money?
-- There's no viable alternative...
Hello?? Well golly gee then what are all these lawsuits from the RIAA about? For a completely nonviable alternative, they sure seem to be awful worried about the INTERNET. Why don't you go tell them it sucks for distributing music and they can quit spending all this money on their lawyers trying to get people to quit using it?
-- Only the tech elite will have access...
I'll even answer this one for you. Everybody in America more or less has access to a public library right? Let me spell this out: Computer. Internet connection. CD Burner. Blank CD's, 3 or 4 bucks a pop. Want music distributed to everyone? There ya go. Profits from the blanks can help support the library or go to the starving artist fund since you seem to concerned about them.
-- Last one, funding the artists.
I know I just mentioned an answer to this, but your point isn't even valid. Artists don't need any extra funding. The ones that are actually good get by just fine. The ones that aren't can damn well get a second job. Besides, even that is FAR better than signing their life away with a greedy record company. Have you seen the terms of those contracts?? All those little strings attached do nothing but fund the greed of the whole industry. It's astonishing to me that anyone thinks the actions of the RIAA are defensible. How can you possibly talk about a need to fund artists when the existing industry solution to fund them practically forces them into slavery?
So let's see, we'll destroy the old, corrupt, greedy system and replace it with one that truly does provide music for free to everyone. Yes my friend, that does make the world a better place.
their effective method of providing music...
They've effectively inflated prices artificially and then fixed them in place. By having virtually 100% control over CD vendors they force everyone to pay 15-20 bucks for the latest cookie-cutter crap that barely qualifies as music, let alone art.
Real cute. I'm assuming the reverse of that would be the people that are so poor as to not have computers or have any friends with access to computers. You would have this non "tech elite" scrape together their cash in order to pay for albums that are priced at least 10x what they're worth? I call foul. Perhaps you're a bit worried that the "tech elite" could reproduce and burn CD's and maybe sell them to the non-elites for 3 or 4 dollars instead?
The RIAA quite arrogantly presumes that all artists are entitled to insane amounts of money regardless of the artistic or musical value of their work. Do you think Britney Spears truly cares about music as an art form? It's an artificially created market whose only purpose is to rake in cash. A true musician spends as much of their own time as they need to and focuses on music, not on making money.
The fact that we even have a term "music industry" just shows how much we've shifted focus from actually creating innovative new art over to greedily making as much cash as possible. In 50 years what will this have done to our culture?
Yes, destroying the RIAA and the mind-boggling greed that it stands for might actually make the world a better place. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Think about it.
I'm sorry, but Critical Mass is one of the most assbackwards stupid things I've ever witnessed in my life. Protests of this sort are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant whiny idiots trying to get attention.
Share the road? Absolutely we'll share it. Just keep this in mind. What percentage of taxpayers that paid for the road drive cars vs. ride bicycles? Sharing works both ways, and roads are primarily designed to suit the needs of drivers.
Want to talk about what the law states? I drive to work every day. I see bikers every day. Every single one I have EVER seen in the city breaks traffic laws CONSTANTLY, no exception. You want fair treatment? Quit running red lights, quit dodging through three lanes of traffic at once, quit riding inbetween lanes of traffic. Sure, some drivers are careless and malicious. Every single biker I've ever seen has a completely blatant disregard for traffic laws. You want to co-exist peacefully in that environment? Start following the F-ing rules.
One more point, and this is the thing that totally blows my mind about these damn fool protests. What the hell are you trying to accomplish with it? Draw attention to your cause? Make some kind of statement? Well congratulations asshole, you've done that. You've got a whole city full of commuters aware that there's a group of bikers out there with issues, AND THEY'RE PISSED AS HELL AT THEM. You've got an issue and you want supporters? Well great, there's two steps to that.
1) Raise awareness.
2) Convince people to support you.
I know this may be a shocking revelation, but it's gonna be pretty hard to accomplish #2 when your method for achieving #1 pisses off 99% of the general population.
People, pull your heads out of your asses. Don't participate in these types of protests, it only fans the flames.
I submit to you that when 99% of the population drives at a safe and efficient speed for the given road they are on, and that speed has a tendency to be above the posted "limit", then that makes the limit itself wrong.
That is the definition of how a democracy functions.
Unfortunately, we do not live in one.
In Soviet Russia, pancake flips YOU!
Well, as another very experienced EQ player, I must say that while twinking might be "accepted", it is not liked, nor is it beneficial to the game. For starters, the only reason it's accepted is that it's possible and legal to do it within the current game structure and rules. Therefore, those that are against it drop into the "well, the game allows, it, there's nothing I can do about it" mentality. That doesn't in any way mean that twinking doesn't still suck. Not to mention that it unfairly rewards players that have multiple accounts, as well as unbalances gameplay in general.
osgeek, please don't tell me that you play on Innoruuk and there's any chance that I know you. please. :)
Alright, been out drinking all night, but whatever. Let's see here, I think we're making some progress. You're talking about "demolishing a greater good". Can you be more specific about this? What exactly is being demolished, and how exactly am I demolishing it with my point of view?
Making a reasonable profit? You're gonna have to back that up with specific numbers, and I don't mean bullshit like Sammy Smith in Nevada cost us $500 million this year with his Internet sales of DTV piracy equipment. Exactly how much of a profit is DTV already making? I'm willing to bet 1) it's already pretty damn "reasonable" and 2) the actual impact that so-called piracy has is completely marginal.
Companies "made up of people like us"? I hardly think so. Or at least, I'll have to respectfully ask you to exclude me from that, because I'm not an asshole. Don't get me wrong, I think DTV has a wonderful concept, provides an incredible service to tons of people and has a really great chance at succeeding. Up til recently I'd been trying to figure out how to fit it into my budget. At the moment, I'm sorry but the company is being run by assholes, and I've lost all respect for it. If I or someone like me worked for DTV, I'd hand everyone in the company a giant-sized dose of Reality(tm) and we'd drop these stupid lawsuits and work on bettering our encryption to stay ahead of hackers. I'm forward-thinking enough and wise enough to realize that business models based on a constantly changing and evolving technology NEED to also evolve themselves, or else they will become obsolete and unprofitable.
Last point, "protecting what's theirs". I'm sorry, but you're helping to perpetuate an assumption that is absolutely incorrect. By broadcasting to everyone over a public medium, DTV is GIVING AWAY these transmissions. They no longer have ANY legitimate argument by which to claim that it's "theirs". The idea of having any ability whatsoever to protect something that you've already freely given away is completely asinine.
In truth, I'd love to work for DTV and work on kick-ass encryption schemes. I think it'd be a tremendously rewarding and fun job, knowing that I'm in competition against a mass of real human opponents, each working to one-up the other. It'd be a great time. But at this point, I never would, and DTV loses all my personal knowledge and insight into possible upgrades to their systems, because I'm frankly PISSED at their heavy-handed, idiotic tactics in attempting to deal with a problem that they've created and handed to themselves.
You know, the scary thing is I'll bet you anything some DTV maggots are already tracing down any track of AgentTim3 they can find on the web, to see if I've been buying up smart card writers or any such things. I mean, I've been arguing against them all day long, so certainly I must be pirating their transmissions too.
One thing I don't see posted here is any mention of the tactics DTV uses in tracking down people that they "think" "might" have bought equipment that could be used to circumvent blah blah blah...but I'm sure they're not doing anything illegal or immoral. They're rich and so I trust them. :)
Our country was founded on the idea that we're FREE. Freedom means I can do whatever I want when it's not infringing on other people's freedom. Me sitting in my house with a bunch of circuit boards I threw together watching satellite TV that is conveniently being beamed to me does NOT infringe upon anyone else whatsover. You, sir, do not have the right to take the freedom to do that away from me.
Police: If AgentTim3 didn't want me to find out he had a meth lab in his basement without obtaining a search warrant, he shouldn't have allowed the heat from his lab to irradiate outside at me!
See my other post on this.
For your sake, I hope you don't ever use a cell phone. After all, once your signal encroaches on my property, I'm gonna listen in damnit, and there's nothing you can do.
Am I supposed to cry now? Go for it, bud. The NSA already does anyhow. You're right, there's nothing I can do. Have fun.
Is DTV liable for a countersuit uner the DMCA?
Consider this, (1) the existence of hackers proves that DTV encryption technology is breakable and that this knowledge is in the public domain.
(2) DTV, aware of this fact, continues to broadcast their signal to every single person in the US.
Essentially this means that they are knowingly distributing copyrighted works (movies) and other TV programs for free to the entire country. Gosh, that sounds a lot like what Napster was doing. I wonder if that's something they could get in trouble for...? :)
Anyway, it's the whole concept that scares me to death. You're right, I wouldn't be aware of the EM radiation. What you're saying is, DTV sends something into my house that I have no knowledge of, then abuses legislation and wants to fine me or toss me in jail if I discover this intrusion and try to do anything with it? What other things am I "not aware of" that I used to have the right to do, and are slowly being taken away behind my back? It's a dangerous and slippery slope, my friend.
I doubt you have to worry about people being swayed, I'm simply stunned at the number of people here that are so willing to hand over control without a second thought.
So what's your deal, I don't understand why you're fighting so hard. You work for DTV? Have the service, pay for it, jealous of hackers? Do you really honestly believe they're in danger of going under because of this? Or just like to argue and play Devil's advocate?
Wow. I'm glad you're getting your daily dose of DTV/Congress-recommended vitamins, minerals, and spoon-fed monkey piss. That's a load of incendiary DTV propaganda. From what I understand, there's no magic "black box" like there is for cable, they change codes regularly and it requires fairly constant web research and updating whatever equipment you're using to get the signal. There's no chance in hell the majority of people are going to put up with that, the same 99% of people that pay for it now are gonna keep paying for it forever. DTV would certainly have the capability to keep several steps ahead of the hackers if they'd quit blowing money on lawyers harassing innocent people and use it to advance their technology.
make a buck unless they use perfect encryption with idealized technology is just way wrong and should be fought vigorously.
No, what should be fought vigorously is large evil stupid corporations that make a bunch of bucks using a particular technology, and then whine, cry, sue people, and infringe upon personal freedoms when technological progress renders their service unprofitable. DTV chose to deliver their service over a public medium. They knew it was publicly available, otherwise they wouldn't have encrypted it at all, now would they? They do NOT have the right to cry foul and run to the courts simply because their obsolete technology allows the public to view their transmissions. The onus is 100% on DTV to keep funding their R&D efforts to stay ahead of the technology curve. If they can't cut it and go out of business, well then they deserve it for having a stupid business model.
Why are you determined to take it and show everyone else how to take it... but only if you don't make a profit?
Ok, one, I don't give half a damn about DTV or its content because it's mindless crap. What I absolutely care about are my personal rights and freedoms, and when I see a company stealing those from me, I get upset. DTV wants to live in my house and tell me what I can and can't do. That's complete, utter, total, flaming bullshit.
Two, the profit thing is a completely different argument and I'm not really concerned about it. Using DTV's proprietary (and presumably trademarked, patented, whatever) technology for my own profit is an entirely different can of worms, and IS most likely infringement. But don't try to use it as a stepping stone to take away my rights to what I can do, in my house, with what DTV is freely giving me.
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,
or turned back."
-Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
This is from 1939, and people still haven't gotten it. DTV has chosen to use a public medium to broadcast their signal. Well, signal-decryption technology has now grown to the point that people can view their broadcasts. So what do they do? Immediately turn to the courts, and try to screw people over and take away their rights. The fact that this outrageous behavior is not only tolerated but accepted amazes me. Whatever happened to inventors and entrepreneurs making money by virtue of the value of their products, rather than sueing the hell out of people?? DTV chose a public medium, now let's see. If they weren't aware that everyone was gonna get the signals, why'd they bother encrypting at all? No, they knew damn well, they spent a little money on encrypting it, and now when that's no good anymore, instead of spending some more money and making their service better, they're spending it on the courts.
I agree, I don't know why more people don't see it this way...
We just got into this at work too. Reselling is different. Dare I use this word on slashdot, but now I'm trying to profit off of DTV's invention. This is clearly a no-no.
The point is that for personal use, inside my house, I have (or should have) the right to do whatever I damn well please with whatever signals DTV is sending in there. That is my RIGHT, and I refuse to give it up because a large company is concerned about their bottom line. It's amazing to me how easily people are convinced to give up their freedoms when big bullies spin it the right way (and buy legislation).
It's really not, though. Transmissions you receive should be your own property to do with as you want, unless there is some compelling reason against it. America was founded on freedom, and we better have damn good reasons to make laws that take freedom away.
In the examples you gave, listening to cell phones and using passive detection methods represent significant invasion of privacy. We therefore have laws against it, to protect people's rights. Also, there's a compelling interest in national security that it's illegal to listen to military channels. The right to privacy, and national security, supercedes the right to listen to those particular transmissions.
Now, DTV telling me I can't listen to their transmissions is an infringement on my basic rights. I'm fine with your other examples, I'll give up my right to listen because there are important reasons to do so.
Now. Please, please tell me where is the compelling reason to allow legislation that makes listening to DTV broadcasts illegal? All I smell is money. Lots and lots of money, purchasing laws. Wonderful place we live in.
They are stealing, stealing stealing. and you want to make it ok, so you can too.
Actually, I don't have DTV, don't have any descramblers, and don't care to because I don't care to watch anything that's on. What I care about is not flopping over on the ground when big companies purchase legislation that takes my rights away so they can squeeze out more profits.
The point I was illustrating was not the impact of the transmission, it's the claim of ownership. It's ridiculous for me to claim that I still own those ping-pong balls after tossing 'em at you. It's equally ridiculous that DTV claims ownership on their signals and tries to tell me what I can or can't do with them.
What the hell are you talking about? DirecTV accidentally sent that satellite up?! Some tech "tripped" into a big red button and turned it on so it started broadcasting? They chose a public medium and started sending signals inside my house without my knowledge or consent. They're mine now, dammit.
How about if we look at the inverse. Would you like it if the police could use heat radiation to detect if there were any illegal activities being conducted in your house? Probably not, but if you don't want the police to do this, then you should've prevented the heat in your house from irradiating outside your walls and into the street.
Different argument, now we're talking about government invasion of privacy. Invalid.
If you think you somehow have the right to do what you wish with a transmission that somehow bounces off your domain, read up on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Or better yet, try and eavesdrop on U.S. military communications, and see how long your argument will hold up before you are tried for espionage.
Riiiiight. DirecTV transmissions are being compared to national security interests. Pure genius, pal. Guess that's why they call 'em Anonymous Cowards.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Ok, here's one for ya. I'm gonna start a company and become a competing service provider to DirecTV. I'm gonna deliver content to everyone's house, my delivery medium will be ping-pong balls. I'll have encrypted content written on each ping-pong ball, it'll probably be along the lines of "YUCK FOU".
I'm gonna start lobbing hundreds of these little suckers into your house every day. Now, if you touch them, pick them up, or even ATTEMPT to read the message on them (unless of course you've got a monthly contract with me to do so, low price of $49.99), you're breaking the law and I'm gonna put your ass in jail.
Geeeez. It makes my skin crawl to see how many people buy into D-TV's argument. It'd be laughable if they weren't so successful at brainwashing all you monkeys.
The issue of "stealing" satellite TV is fundamentally different from that of cable TV. With cable, you can't get it in your house unless you sign a contract with a company to install it. Said contract stipulates that you won't decrypt it, so if you do so you're in breach of contract and you're wrong. Fine.
Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent. This isn't a joke people, if I set up equipment to turn those transmissions into usable TV signals, I've done nothing wrong. If I put up a website telling people about my accomplishments, I'm now liable for 5 years imprisonment and a $500K fine? That's the same punishment as criminally negligent manslaughter.
I find it sad that so many posters on here seem to agree that this is illegal and side with the giant money-grubbing corporation. The war is already lost.
Congratulations, you're helping give your rights away!
I don't have DirecTV, and have never signed any contracts or had any contact with that company. DirecTV stuck a satellite up in orbit that shoots signals at my house and through my own body every day. I don't NEED a reason to decrypt those signals, what I do with them is my personal business. Maybe I want to decrypt them and display the raw binary on a giant projection TV because I find it strangely erotic. Screw off, that's my own damn business.
When are you people going to quit eating the corporate philosophy, wake up, and start holding on to your rights?
I could have a DISCO!
Personally I think it'd be totally justified to do so. I look at the dollars-per-hour of entertainment ratio, and it's a total no-brainer. I used to play EQ upwards of 150 hours a month. I'd easily pay 50 bucks or way more per month for a game that was that enjoyable.
It's cheaper than movies, it's cheaper than bars, it's cheaper than clubbing, it's wayyy cheaper than crack! Whole problem is, people have preconceived notions about paying monthly, and are stupid, and companies are scared to jack prices.
But it's not like it's an obstacle that can't ever be overcome. Because people that think that way are, frankly, stupid. It just has to be marketed the right way so that they realize that they're being stupid and it's not a big deal to pay for it.
Example: Going to see The Two Towers. $9.00 ticket, $4.00 popcorn, for about 3 hours of entertainment. That's a month of The Sims Online! A conservative player can easily put in 80-100 hours online a month. Those that are really into it put in way more.
Another example: Let's see, night out shooting pool and drinking beers. Yep, fifty bucks easy. For about 4-5 hours of entertainment.
People are just stupid, once the marketdroids figure out points like that to emphasize the argument against monthly fees really goes in the toilet.
Is it just me, or is she looking really fine right now? How about a new poll for best sideline reporter?