Wow. So because some guy can't record Cagney & Lacey reruns, the U.S is on the verge of civil war? Either this is a logically flawed argument, or Americans are even more shallow than I thought. If the latter is true, a little Malthus inspired justice may be just the cure. --
I don't see any removal of rights here...as has been noted in this forum before, one has a right to free speech, not a right to speech without consequences. And if the DMCA is bad law, so be it. One doesn't change the law by quietly subverting it, but by standing in the face of it and taking the consequences. Only then can you hope to raise the collective consciousness of those who have the power to change it. The main advocate of civil disobedience that comes to mind here is Thoreau, and even he accepted that punishment is a part of the process. If you break the law, good or bad, you will be punished. And it is when those are punished for breaking bad laws that a change can be effected. --
Back when I was the GM of a small ISP, we did just that. This was before the CDA had been overturned, at a time when there was a risk that we would be held liable for information passing over our network. Partially to avoid those situations and also to avoid the then unclear situation of what to do when someone wants the identity of the user of a given IP at a given time, we would cycle our radius logs every week. No backup, no electron trail. --
It seems that there is some confusion over with whom an institution can share information. The act gives consumers the ability to opt out of the sharing of their information with "non-affiliated third parties." Contrary to Michael's assertion, this does have some teeth. The act defines an affiliate to be:
(a)Affiliate means any company that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another company
This actually makes it pretty limiting, and in the briefing I attended on the act, several retailers present were quite concerned with how it would limit their marketing efforts.The concern was actually raised that if companies can't obtain the types of data they can get these days that show spending habits, income, etc, their marketing dollars can not be focused effectively. The net result is a broader, more expensive marketing effort (which results in higher prices).
The upshot of all this is that if you're the paranoid type, this bill will actually help. It is actually a good piece of legislation for consumers' privacy. But if you're looking to get away from junk mail...you may want to try a lean-to deep in the woods. --
Eschewing the more pedantic route for a moment, I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with free speech. For starters, distribution of copyrighted material is not protected as first amendment speech, but one does not even need to look at it from that perspective. @home can provide whatever newsgroups they want. Period. They are not shutting down a newsgroup, they are merely choosing not to carry it on their pay-for-access service. And while they cite legal concerns as their reasons, the money they save on bandwidth and server space is probably a pretty nice bonus and would alone justify their decision. If they had announced "We're getting rid of these groups because they use too many network resources," what would the argument be then?
You pay for their service, you are at their mercy when you use their server.
I tried following the link here, but instead got this fantastic message:
Not Found
The requested URL/strips/sw183.shtmltarget=new was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
It amazes me still that just because something is on the internet, we expect to get it for free. Its as if people think when they pay for a magazine all they are paying for is the paper its printed on. While this may be true for some publications, people still miss the fact that putting the words together is more expensive than putting them on their chosen medium. We decry Salon moving to a pay for content model, but don't question the fact that the upshot is asking some of the best brains on the net to work for free. And then we complain even more because the advertising is obtrusive.
Just because the distribution is (comparitively) inexpensive, does not mean that the production is equally inexpensive. I'm surprised that there have not been reports of net zine brain drain, when the idealist columnists suddenly realize that they need to eat too. If we have learned anyhting over the past year, its that fundamental economc principles still apply on the net.
Incidentally, I would love to see suck's content in a paper based version. Hopefully the brains behind it will find a home in traditional publishing outlets.
Besides, without a wireless network, you probably can't read a net zine whilst sitting on the can. -- Do not taunt happy fun ball --
This sounds to me like a browser feature, meaning it can be turned off, and that it is only part of one browser. If I wanted to write a browser that changed every link into a link to some guy's "Manimal" fan site, I could legally do so, provided that the users were given this caveat in advance. It may not be a good idea, but it certainly isn't worth taking up arms over.
There is such a thing as a bad idea that isn't illegal.
And what is the worst that smart tags could do? Link to something the author disagrees with? So you either end up with links that support the author's leanings, or ones that provide an opposing viewpoint. Neither of which destroy speech on the internet. -- Do not taunt happy fun ball --
While the Safeway Club Card is indeed a grave threat to our personal liberty and privacy, at least they give you coupons for your troubles. Perhaps if echelon offered targeted marketing based on the personal information they collect, it would be OK.
"Amazing. Yesterday I surfed a pr0n site, sent an email to Grandma, and told a telemarketer to screw off. Today I received a coupon for one month free membership at shavedgrannies.gov. Thank you echelon. Thank you America!"
After yesterday's debacle, I expected this review to be about how poor the binding was or how the reviewer's book light would not clip on to this book, and thus why this is the worst book ever.
The idea of the community of trust is that trust is assumed...you don't need to prove to your prof that you deserve to be trusted. And because you're trusted, you're less likely to cheat. Running every paper through this program goes counter to that, because it assumes that there are cheaters. Its the fact that profs assumed there were no cheaters that I had take home, closed book exams when I was there. That I could take finals out of the classroom and go sit under a tree with a smoke while I took it, out of sight of my prof.
If people assume you're cheating...well, I know first hand how that affects ones actions in a relationship. If someone doesn't trust you anyway, your motivation to be trustworthy is gone. Maybe the same applies here.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. So because some guy can't record Cagney & Lacey reruns, the U.S is on the verge of civil war? Either this is a logically flawed argument, or Americans are even more shallow than I thought. If the latter is true, a little Malthus inspired justice may be just the cure.
--
I don't see any removal of rights here...as has been noted in this forum before, one has a right to free speech, not a right to speech without consequences. And if the DMCA is bad law, so be it. One doesn't change the law by quietly subverting it, but by standing in the face of it and taking the consequences. Only then can you hope to raise the collective consciousness of those who have the power to change it. The main advocate of civil disobedience that comes to mind here is Thoreau, and even he accepted that punishment is a part of the process. If you break the law, good or bad, you will be punished. And it is when those are punished for breaking bad laws that a change can be effected.
--
Back when I was the GM of a small ISP, we did just that. This was before the CDA had been overturned, at a time when there was a risk that we would be held liable for information passing over our network. Partially to avoid those situations and also to avoid the then unclear situation of what to do when someone wants the identity of the user of a given IP at a given time, we would cycle our radius logs every week. No backup, no electron trail.
--
I tried to read the article, but instead get a slashdot 404 when trying to find the url http://slashdot.org/A%20HREF=. Oh well.
--
It seems that there is some confusion over with whom an institution can share information. The act gives consumers the ability to opt out of the sharing of their information with "non-affiliated third parties." Contrary to Michael's assertion, this does have some teeth. The act defines an affiliate to be:
(a)Affiliate means any company that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another company
This actually makes it pretty limiting, and in the briefing I attended on the act, several retailers present were quite concerned with how it would limit their marketing efforts.The concern was actually raised that if companies can't obtain the types of data they can get these days that show spending habits, income, etc, their marketing dollars can not be focused effectively. The net result is a broader, more expensive marketing effort (which results in higher prices).
The upshot of all this is that if you're the paranoid type, this bill will actually help. It is actually a good piece of legislation for consumers' privacy. But if you're looking to get away from junk mail...you may want to try a lean-to deep in the woods.
--
alt.binaries.first_ammendment
Eschewing the more pedantic route for a moment, I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with free speech. For starters, distribution of copyrighted material is not protected as first amendment speech, but one does not even need to look at it from that perspective. @home can provide whatever newsgroups they want. Period. They are not shutting down a newsgroup, they are merely choosing not to carry it on their pay-for-access service. And while they cite legal concerns as their reasons, the money they save on bandwidth and server space is probably a pretty nice bonus and would alone justify their decision. If they had announced "We're getting rid of these groups because they use too many network resources," what would the argument be then?
You pay for their service, you are at their mercy when you use their server.
--
Do not taunt happy fun ball
--
I tried following the link here, but instead got this fantastic message:
/strips/sw183.shtmltarget=new was not found on this server.
Not Found The requested URL
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You gotta love causality in your error messages.
--
Do not taunt happy fun ball
--
It amazes me still that just because something is on the internet, we expect to get it for free. Its as if people think when they pay for a magazine all they are paying for is the paper its printed on. While this may be true for some publications, people still miss the fact that putting the words together is more expensive than putting them on their chosen medium. We decry Salon moving to a pay for content model, but don't question the fact that the upshot is asking some of the best brains on the net to work for free. And then we complain even more because the advertising is obtrusive.
Just because the distribution is (comparitively) inexpensive, does not mean that the production is equally inexpensive. I'm surprised that there have not been reports of net zine brain drain, when the idealist columnists suddenly realize that they need to eat too. If we have learned anyhting over the past year, its that fundamental economc principles still apply on the net.
Incidentally, I would love to see suck's content in a paper based version. Hopefully the brains behind it will find a home in traditional publishing outlets. Besides, without a wireless network, you probably can't read a net zine whilst sitting on the can.
--
Do not taunt happy fun ball
--
This sounds to me like a browser feature, meaning it can be turned off, and that it is only part of one browser. If I wanted to write a browser that changed every link into a link to some guy's "Manimal" fan site, I could legally do so, provided that the users were given this caveat in advance. It may not be a good idea, but it certainly isn't worth taking up arms over.
There is such a thing as a bad idea that isn't illegal.
And what is the worst that smart tags could do? Link to something the author disagrees with? So you either end up with links that support the author's leanings, or ones that provide an opposing viewpoint. Neither of which destroy speech on the internet.
--
Do not taunt happy fun ball
--
While the Safeway Club Card is indeed a grave threat to our personal liberty and privacy, at least they give you coupons for your troubles. Perhaps if echelon offered targeted marketing based on the personal information they collect, it would be OK.
"Amazing. Yesterday I surfed a pr0n site, sent an email to Grandma, and told a telemarketer to screw off. Today I received a coupon for one month free membership at shavedgrannies.gov. Thank you echelon. Thank you America!"
After yesterday's debacle, I expected this review to be about how poor the binding was or how the reviewer's book light would not clip on to this book, and thus why this is the worst book ever.
--
If I had a sig, it would likely be here
The idea of the community of trust is that trust is assumed...you don't need to prove to your prof that you deserve to be trusted. And because you're trusted, you're less likely to cheat. Running every paper through this program goes counter to that, because it assumes that there are cheaters. Its the fact that profs assumed there were no cheaters that I had take home, closed book exams when I was there. That I could take finals out of the classroom and go sit under a tree with a smoke while I took it, out of sight of my prof.
If people assume you're cheating...well, I know first hand how that affects ones actions in a relationship. If someone doesn't trust you anyway, your motivation to be trustworthy is gone. Maybe the same applies here.