"Piracy" has no legal meaning and it only exists because 'copyright infringement' doesn't sound as bad. It's hard to argue with this fact.
Please... Whenever I hear "piracy" I think "copyright infringement". That's what the word means nowadays, taking over boats is a secondary meaning. And the reason it exists is not simply because it sounds worse. In fact, it doesn't sound worse. It's just shorter.
It takes a special kind of stupid to admit to doing the exact thing that he is trying to stop.
Oh come on. Do you think Taco and Hemos have never downloaded anything from napster? Everyone commits copyright infringement at some point, and most people try to stop others from infringing their copyrights.
Seriously, I think it would be great if there was a P2P backup system. Private files could be encrypted, and everything could be uploaded to multiple peers. Obviously some sort of trust system would have to be worked out, but it could work. Even if I just connected to myself and two or three real life friends with DSL connections, it'd be great to have my files accessible everywhere, almost all the time.
The only number I've heard regarding the cost of spam was 6 billion dollars a year.
Most of which was probably the cost of enforcing terms of service agreements and fighting lawsuits. Criminalizing spam will only increase those costs, adding FBI agents, court costs, public defenders, and criminal prosecutors to the equation.
I'm happy to see the alternatives being used and discussed, but we have got to start getting really serious about getting cold fusion to work, or else we're in big trouble in about 40 years.
Isn't fission enough? Sure, cleanup is a pain, but as the cost of energy goes up and the cost of space travel goes down we will eventually be able to just dump the waste into the sun or something.
So, in short, yes 57% of people probably have downloaded software from the internet without paying; its probably more like 100%, just the other 43% were too stupid to understand the question, or understand that at one point they probably DID download software without paying for it.
The actual press release says "57 percent of those who have downloaded software either seldom or never pay for the copyrighted works they download". So those 43% were already excluded. The other 43% surveyed apparently said they pay for the software they download more often than seldom.
57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software
How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?
I'll take that bet. C'mon, how many people do you know who paid for netscape back when it was shareware? How many people you know continue to use WinZip after the free trial period? I bet the percent of people who are pirates is closer to 90 percent than 57.
Since the watermark is not something you noprmally hear; it's possible to remove the watermark without destroying the original data.
It's possible, but with good watermarking technology it's nearly impossible to destroy the watermark without destroying the quality of the song. The idea is that the watermark is audible, but not recognizably out of place. I don't even know if the technology is available yet, but it is possible in theory.
Nope. Obscene, harassing phone calls (unlike their e-mail equivalents), are illegal.
I still have my right to free speech, regardless of whether or not the government claims to have taken it away.
My mail server is my private property.
I never hopped into your mail server and pissed in it. I sent a request to your mail server to flip a few bits, and your mail server complied, as you set it up to do.
I have not put up a public announcement stating that anyone who wishes may...[s]end me advertisements via e-mail. Therefore, I don't want to find random people...sending me random ads in my e-mail.
I don't really think that one necessarily implies the other. But even if it does, I don't think it matters. By setting up a mail server to accept random ads, you're taking the risk that someone might send them to you. If you don't want to take that risk, don't set up the server.
Spammers do send 10 emails a day. And you have no way of stopping them. They are anonymous. They change their identity in order to PREVENT you from blocking their drivel.
So what's the point of the law if they are anonymous? You can't sue someone if you can't find out who they are.
and how does that trojaned version get onto the server?
It doesn't have to get onto the server. Anyone in between can change the packets. That's the whole point of ssh, right, that you don't trust the people in between?
If salfter.dyndns.org is 0wn3d, I have bigger problems to deal with than a corrupt SSH client.
salfter.dyndns.org, or your ISPs dns server, or anyone along the route between any of them...
There are plenty [senate.gov] of [disney.com] other [mpaa.org] targets [riaa.com] that would be much more attractive for someone to take over.
Sure, and that's why you'd probably be fine just using telnet. Why do you need ssh in the first place?
It supplies various checksums for the files which you can use for verification, but (as Simon Tatham points out) the programs that do that verification aren't themselves verifiable.
It's highly unlikely that my checksum program works correctly for every file except a version of PuTTY which wasn't even created at the time I downloaded it.
There is a point beyond which an eye for security turns into paranoia...nothing is ever 100% secure.
I agree. But once you've switched from telnet to ssh you're already running into the paranoia realm. Who are you afraid of that can't pull off a simple dns hack?
One final note: Keeping a copy of PuTTY on a secure site would entail getting a certificate from someone like Verisign, and they don't exactly have the best reputation [slashdot.org] in the world.
As I said, I agree that nothing is 100%. I just think that the point of using ssh is to protect against the people between you and your server. Downloading your ssh client using http and not verifying it seems to me to defeat that purpose. In my mind, I'd just as well use telnet.
Yes, and the Junk Fax law, which is constitutional and has been upheld in a court of law, bans all unsolicited advertisement faxes. Why? Because there is a direct cost to be paid for receiving these commercial faxes, and it is unfair for the recipient to suffer the burdon [sic] of that cost.
It was determined that the public interest outweighed the first ammendment issues. In the case of the costs of spam - ranging from miniscule to nothing, I don't think the the public interest outweighs the first ammendment issues.
On a specious level, there's the cost of bandwidth to the ISP, the drive storage of the data, processing time of same,
Which are zero except at peak times, and miniscule during peak times.
and the time it takes me, the end user, to realize that only 3 out of 120 emails I got today weren't SPAM and to delete them
That's not a direct cost, and you're an idiot if you can't manage to filter your mail better.
On the specific level, if you have email access on a cellphone, or have maximum bandwidth allocations on your ISP, you can cite some very specific costs associated with that SPAM.
And if I shoot myself every time I read the word "the", I can sue you for murder, right?
The precedent exists and it's not a bad one.
I'm opposed to the junk fax law, though not nearly as much as I'm opposed to a spam law.
The bottom line is that I don't want to waste my tax money subsidizing your email account.
So you're sure that the program your client receives is the same as the program your server sends, not a trojaned version which turns off encryption, for example.
As long as I can use my speakers, I can make a copy.
Exactly. The "problem" isn't the ease of making the first copy, it's the ease of making additional copies and distributing them around the globe. I think the Eminem CD appearing before the CD was even released to the public proved that.
The only way technology could help is if it used audio watermarks to track the copy to the original purchaser. Even then you're going to have to use damn good watermarking technology, cause once it's off, it's off.
I have an email account so that I can get messages that I am interested in. I am not interested in ads.
It's not the government's responsibility to police that - it's yours.
The analogy above of somebody banging on the door ten times a day has one major flaw in it; there is no expense to the person who owns the door.
Fine. Then we won't use that analogy.
Why does the fact that I have an email account ever on its own authorize you to email me?
I dispute that I need authorization in the first place.
Why do you feel that your mere existance justifies your "providing" me a service (i.e. spam) at my expense, which I have not asked for and have no desire for?
You have implicitly requested to receive emails by setting up an email server. Further, I don't believe that I need any justification to send you email. Your server is free to reject that email. And you are free to not download it, or not read it, or delete it. I am in no way forcing anything upon you.
Do people have a right to privacy?
That's far too broad of a question for me to answer. People don't have a right to stop others from spreading true information about them without a contractual agreement, if that's what you're getting at.
Do you have a fax machine on an 800- number? Please provide that number.
No, I don't.
What do you perceive as the difference between "free speech" and "speech for free"? Is there any?
The phrase "speech for free" doesn't really have a set meaning in my mind. It sounds like something you just invented. "Free speech", in my mind, means that the content of one's communications should never be regulated. I don't believe in any exceptions, unless you want to count conspiracy to commit a crime, which I personally see as more of an act than speech. Also I guess contractual agreements, but the regulation is really on the breaking of the promise, not the making of it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Piracy" has no legal meaning and it only exists because 'copyright infringement' doesn't sound as bad. It's hard to argue with this fact.
Please... Whenever I hear "piracy" I think "copyright infringement". That's what the word means nowadays, taking over boats is a secondary meaning. And the reason it exists is not simply because it sounds worse. In fact, it doesn't sound worse. It's just shorter.
It takes a special kind of stupid to admit to doing the exact thing that he is trying to stop.
Oh come on. Do you think Taco and Hemos have never downloaded anything from napster? Everyone commits copyright infringement at some point, and most people try to stop others from infringing their copyrights.
I think I'll go download something right now....
Just don't upload. Distribution of more than $1000 worth of material (and with RIAA definitions I'm sure that means 2 CDs) is a criminal offense.
But Internet Explorer doesn't check that the domain named by a certificate is the domain name that it used to contact the host.
Yes it does. Go to https://slashdotsucks.com/ if you don't believe me.
That's what it's for, right?
Seriously, I think it would be great if there was a P2P backup system. Private files could be encrypted, and everything could be uploaded to multiple peers. Obviously some sort of trust system would have to be worked out, but it could work. Even if I just connected to myself and two or three real life friends with DSL connections, it'd be great to have my files accessible everywhere, almost all the time.
The only number I've heard regarding the cost of spam was 6 billion dollars a year.
Most of which was probably the cost of enforcing terms of service agreements and fighting lawsuits. Criminalizing spam will only increase those costs, adding FBI agents, court costs, public defenders, and criminal prosecutors to the equation.
What that says about man's ability to destroy his environment, given a potentially limitless supply of tools
With a limitless supply of tools we could easily clean up the mess we've created.
I'm sure your grandkids will be happy to hear that you chose a few pennies over their health.
They will if those few pennies are used to discover cures to terminal diseases. Pollution has a cost, but that cost is not infinite.
I'm happy to see the alternatives being used and discussed, but we have got to start getting really serious about getting cold fusion to work, or else we're in big trouble in about 40 years.
Isn't fission enough? Sure, cleanup is a pain, but as the cost of energy goes up and the cost of space travel goes down we will eventually be able to just dump the waste into the sun or something.
Using your logic, everyone who received letters with Anthrax should blame themselves because their mailboxes accepted the Anthrax-tainted letters.
Using your logic attempted murder is the same thing as sending commercial email.
So, in short, yes 57% of people probably have downloaded software from the internet without paying; its probably more like 100%, just the other 43% were too stupid to understand the question, or understand that at one point they probably DID download software without paying for it.
The actual press release says "57 percent of those who have downloaded software either seldom or never pay for the copyrighted works they download". So those 43% were already excluded. The other 43% surveyed apparently said they pay for the software they download more often than seldom.
57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software
How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?
I'll take that bet. C'mon, how many people do you know who paid for netscape back when it was shareware? How many people you know continue to use WinZip after the free trial period? I bet the percent of people who are pirates is closer to 90 percent than 57.
Since the watermark is not something you noprmally hear; it's possible to remove the watermark without destroying the original data.
It's possible, but with good watermarking technology it's nearly impossible to destroy the watermark without destroying the quality of the song. The idea is that the watermark is audible, but not recognizably out of place. I don't even know if the technology is available yet, but it is possible in theory.
Nope. Obscene, harassing phone calls (unlike their e-mail equivalents), are illegal.
I still have my right to free speech, regardless of whether or not the government claims to have taken it away.
My mail server is my private property.
I never hopped into your mail server and pissed in it. I sent a request to your mail server to flip a few bits, and your mail server complied, as you set it up to do.
I have not put up a public announcement stating that anyone who wishes may...[s]end me advertisements via e-mail. Therefore, I don't want to find random people...sending me random ads in my e-mail.
I don't really think that one necessarily implies the other. But even if it does, I don't think it matters. By setting up a mail server to accept random ads, you're taking the risk that someone might send them to you. If you don't want to take that risk, don't set up the server.
Post/reply/flame all you want; I'm done with you.
Shit, you should have mentioned that in the beginning. Here I had this nice lengthy reply, and now I have to throw it away.
Spammers do send 10 emails a day. And you have no way of stopping them. They are anonymous. They change their identity in order to PREVENT you from blocking their drivel.
So what's the point of the law if they are anonymous? You can't sue someone if you can't find out who they are.
and how does that trojaned version get onto the server?
It doesn't have to get onto the server. Anyone in between can change the packets. That's the whole point of ssh, right, that you don't trust the people in between?
If salfter.dyndns.org is 0wn3d, I have bigger problems to deal with than a corrupt SSH client.
salfter.dyndns.org, or your ISPs dns server, or anyone along the route between any of them...
There are plenty [senate.gov] of [disney.com] other [mpaa.org] targets [riaa.com] that would be much more attractive for someone to take over.
Sure, and that's why you'd probably be fine just using telnet. Why do you need ssh in the first place?
It supplies various checksums for the files which you can use for verification, but (as Simon Tatham points out) the programs that do that verification aren't themselves verifiable.
It's highly unlikely that my checksum program works correctly for every file except a version of PuTTY which wasn't even created at the time I downloaded it.
There is a point beyond which an eye for security turns into paranoia...nothing is ever 100% secure.
I agree. But once you've switched from telnet to ssh you're already running into the paranoia realm. Who are you afraid of that can't pull off a simple dns hack?
One final note: Keeping a copy of PuTTY on a secure site would entail getting a certificate from someone like Verisign, and they don't exactly have the best reputation [slashdot.org] in the world.
As I said, I agree that nothing is 100%. I just think that the point of using ssh is to protect against the people between you and your server. Downloading your ssh client using http and not verifying it seems to me to defeat that purpose. In my mind, I'd just as well use telnet.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was *your* web server. I thought it was just some random website you had found.
Yes, and the Junk Fax law, which is constitutional and has been upheld in a court of law, bans all unsolicited advertisement faxes. Why? Because there is a direct cost to be paid for receiving these commercial faxes, and it is unfair for the recipient to suffer the burdon [sic] of that cost.
It was determined that the public interest outweighed the first ammendment issues. In the case of the costs of spam - ranging from miniscule to nothing, I don't think the the public interest outweighs the first ammendment issues.
On a specious level, there's the cost of bandwidth to the ISP, the drive storage of the data, processing time of same,
Which are zero except at peak times, and miniscule during peak times.
and the time it takes me, the end user, to realize that only 3 out of 120 emails I got today weren't SPAM and to delete them
That's not a direct cost, and you're an idiot if you can't manage to filter your mail better.
On the specific level, if you have email access on a cellphone, or have maximum bandwidth allocations on your ISP, you can cite some very specific costs associated with that SPAM.
And if I shoot myself every time I read the word "the", I can sue you for murder, right?
The precedent exists and it's not a bad one.
I'm opposed to the junk fax law, though not nearly as much as I'm opposed to a spam law.
The bottom line is that I don't want to waste my tax money subsidizing your email account.
So you're sure that the program your client receives is the same as the program your server sends, not a trojaned version which turns off encryption, for example.
As long as I can use my speakers, I can make a copy.
Exactly. The "problem" isn't the ease of making the first copy, it's the ease of making additional copies and distributing them around the globe. I think the Eminem CD appearing before the CD was even released to the public proved that.
The only way technology could help is if it used audio watermarks to track the copy to the original purchaser. Even then you're going to have to use damn good watermarking technology, cause once it's off, it's off.
I threw it up on my webserver. I can punch the URL into IE on a random public system, tell it to run instead of save, and it'll fire right up.
You're using https, I hope.
Doesn't downloading your ssh client from some random unencrypted internet site kind of defeat the purpose?
These requests are made by giving someone your email address.
So by posting your email address on slashdot you are requestion email from everyone who reads it?
I have an email account so that I can get messages that I am interested in. I am not interested in ads.
It's not the government's responsibility to police that - it's yours.
The analogy above of somebody banging on the door ten times a day has one major flaw in it; there is no expense to the person who owns the door.
Fine. Then we won't use that analogy.
Why does the fact that I have an email account ever on its own authorize you to email me?
I dispute that I need authorization in the first place.
Why do you feel that your mere existance justifies your "providing" me a service (i.e. spam) at my expense, which I have not asked for and have no desire for?
You have implicitly requested to receive emails by setting up an email server. Further, I don't believe that I need any justification to send you email. Your server is free to reject that email. And you are free to not download it, or not read it, or delete it. I am in no way forcing anything upon you.
Do people have a right to privacy?
That's far too broad of a question for me to answer. People don't have a right to stop others from spreading true information about them without a contractual agreement, if that's what you're getting at.
Do you have a fax machine on an 800- number? Please provide that number.
No, I don't.
What do you perceive as the difference between "free speech" and "speech for free"? Is there any?
The phrase "speech for free" doesn't really have a set meaning in my mind. It sounds like something you just invented. "Free speech", in my mind, means that the content of one's communications should never be regulated. I don't believe in any exceptions, unless you want to count conspiracy to commit a crime, which I personally see as more of an act than speech. Also I guess contractual agreements, but the regulation is really on the breaking of the promise, not the making of it.
If it travels over the internet, it's speech.