But it does make apparent who is supposedly responsible for the domain. You are the one responsible for your domains, aren't you? So why don't you willing to take phone calls from people regarding the domains you are responsible for?
Because no one has any reason to call me on the phone regarding my domain names. That said, I didn't lie about my phone number on my domain name application. The number I gave is a valid efax number.
And as far as spamcop goes, why do you want outsiders to police your domains? Why don't you adopt a Harry Truman "the buck stops here" attitude and police your domains yourself? If more people did that we would have a lot less spam.
Huh? What are you talking about? I do police my domains. Spamcop is for reporting. Because of the hundreds of spam complaints I have received to date not a single one has been accurate. They've all been from idiots who don't know how to read headers. So I've shut off my postmaster@ accounts, because I'm tired of listening to the whining idiots.
Excuse me -- I didn't realize it took a Ph.D. to decode e-mail headers!
My comment was more directed at "you" in general, meaning people in general. That said, I can't decode the damn things myself. I use spamcop.
because the way you just did with this statement made you come across as just another net-asshole with an (unjustified) superiority complex.
I apologize.
If you can that is because you probably have only registered vanity domains used by no one other than yourself...
Yep, I have a net total of two static IP addresses. My server, and my home DSL connection. And I know from the logs that not a single piece of spam has been sent from either.
If that's what you mean by vanity domains, pointing to a single IP address, then yep, that's what I have. If you meant that no one other than I uses the domains, then you're quite mistaken.
That already exists. Lie to an agent of the government and get caught, it is called perjury and is already punishable by imprisonment.
Lying to an agent of the government is not perjury. You have to be under oath to commit perjury.
Ensuring that no one lies to NSI is (in theory) a good idea so that all domains have a valid contact person. If you don't like that you can register your domain in another country with less restrictive registration requirements.
Fortunately the government can't enact ex-post facto laws, so the domains I've already registered don't apply. As for new ones, I guess I'll have to buy a P.O. Box.
Just don't get pissed off if I block your domain due the lack of a valid contact person to complain to when someone in your domain spams me...
Making my address and phone number public information does nothing to stop spam. If you want to report spam from my domain, use spamcop. I don't trust you to read the headers properly. I haven't had a single piece of spam sent from my domain ever.
I don't know, is it illegal to buy a house or a car with bogus id and personal information? If it is, it certaintly should be illegal here.
In that case you're giving information for a loan. Lying on a loan application is much different. Even so I don't know if you can go to jail for 5 years for it. Maybe though.
i think the the network solutions case is different from yahoo one. i don't know the full story in regards to ns, nor how similar lies are treated in other industries (ie, buying a house or a car). I'd have to find out that before making a decision.
A domain name is hardly a house or a car. It's only $10, and it's paid for upfront. I'd look into what criminal laws there are against lying to radio shack when you buy an ethernet cable.
There's only one reason for this domain name law. The government wants to make it easier to track people who own domain names. Anonymity on the internet simply won't be tolerated.
I guess I should go ahead and buy that P.O. Box. My mail forwarding is about to expire, and I don't want people breaking into my house because of something I put up on my website.
Well yes, you should. You're a free rider, meaning whatever money the networks don't make on you they have to make on the rest of us, increasing our cost for watching television. In most ethical (and economic) systems that's frowned upon.
The networks don't have to make money on anyone. No one is forcing them to use the public airwaves to broadcast their shows. If no one watched commercials, and the networks went out of business, and we used the airwaves for something else, like multicast internet distribution, I'd be perfectly happy.
Also, the networks don't know whether or not I am watching the commercials. If anything, I should only feel guilty if I'm a neilson family. Or do you suggest that it's immoral to watch the commercials and not buy the products as well?
I think you have a pretty screwed up concept of most ethical and economic systems. There are quite a few which include the concept that if no one is being harmed it can't possibly be wrong.
Because television is not a two way medium, any payment for television constitutes payment for content.
For cable stations, perhaps, but network stations are available for free. Payments for network stations constitute payment for not making the effort of installing an antenna on your roof.
Also, even to the extent that you are paying the content makers for their content, this only covers some of the costs. Even a slashdot "subscription" doesn't block all ads forever. I'm sure if you were willing to pay $2/hour for skipped commercials, and there was an efficient way for this to be monitored and collected, that the content providers would be more than happy to let you.
I'm saying you should recompense the networks for the shows you watch.
I let them use the airwaves over and through my house.
They don't, and can't, factor in that you skip them entirely.
They most certainly can and do. They don't want to, but they do.
You do want to pay your fair share for the shows you watch, don't you?
Of course I don't. If I had to pay for television, I wouldn't watch it. As it is I watch very little television anyway. Mainly PBS, which I generally turn off between shows (when the commercials run). When I do watch network television I generally browse slashdot during the commercials (I watch TV with my all-in-wonder). Should I feel guilty about that?
I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses.
I'd go the way of the Audio Home Recording Act. Put a tax on PVRs, then make it legal to do anything you want with them.
TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention
It's worse than that because ultimately it is the consumers themselves who pay for those ads, in the form of higher product prices. Why not just tax consumer products directly and give the money to the television networks? At least we wouldn't have to watch the ads.
I may be mistaking your tone, but are you saying that making it illegal to give bogus information is a bad thing?
I'm certainly saying that it shouldn't be more than a civil penalty reflecting the actual damage done to the company, perhaps tripled for punitive damages. Certainly not 5 years in jail.
My opinion is, is you're getting something for free in rreturn for your information, you should be required to hold up your end of the deal...
I'm certainly not getting anything for free from Network Solutions.
again, no one is forcing you to use these free products and services.
Two problems with that argument. First of all, Network Solutions has a monopoly. So if I want to get a domain name, I don't have a choice. Network Solutions was handed this monopoly by the government, so this in essence amounts to government censorship.
Secondly, because the charges are criminal, even if someone uses a registrar which collects information (under requirement by Network Solutions), and lies to that registrar, and that registrar doesn't care, they still can be prosecuted, because their crime is a crime against the state, not a crime against an individual.
Are you suggesting that the government should pass criminal penalties up to five years in prison for lying? To Network Solutions, to Yahoo, to your girlfriend, to anyone?
I thought you'd be able to make the leap that the actual law didn't use the word "CD", since it was written before CDs existed. Maybe there should be a little IQ indicator next people's names, so we can decide what reading level to phrase our responses.
Although I don't recall hearing about DigitalConsumer.org on slashdot I'm sure not a few likeminded individuals were involved, and we were definatly involved in the huge public upcry [slashdot.org] that halted the passage of the bill.
I find it very naiive of you to believe that slashdot, let alone the public, had anything to do with the halt of the Hollings' bill. That had much more to do with Intel and AOL, and the fact that anyone with half a brain could see that the bill would do more harm than good to anyone except a very select few media companies.
The rest of your post I disagree with, but I don't feel like arguing. The point of my post was to be humorous more than to change people's opinions. If you like the big fucking ads, the threats of lawsuits, moderators with unlimited points, and the $rtbl, I'm not going to change your mind any.
Congress is already trying to make it a criminal act to lie to Network Solutions, punishible by up to 5 years in prison. How much longer before they try to do the same for lying to Yahoo?
Shouldn't you have to opt into ads on the freeway?
I was joking. Hence the:). The solution is quite simple for both slashdot users and yahoo users. If you don't want the ads, block them, or don't use the service. For bonus points complain and/or start your own site.
The original lyrics are also copyrighted and can't be reproduced for wide distribution (even as a vocal transformation) without consent.
Not exactly. A cover song can be publically performed with a simple ASCAP (or BMI or whatever) compulsary license. To be on the safe side, they should definately have an ASCAP license, that's not all that expensive. They still could run into problems because of the fact that they are allowing the songs to be downloaded. Technically, they should probably be paying Harry Fox (or someone similar) "7.1 cents per CD sold if the song is 5 minutes or under. Songs over 5 minutes cost slightly more, based on a rate of 1.35 cents per minute."
I already use mozilla to bust the doubleclick ads. Maybe I'll look into junkbuster... But hey, slashdot and yahoo both have to make money somehow, right?
Remember how everyone got all up in arms about Slashdot's plans to implement Big Fucking Ads? Well, even if slashdot readers were pissed and angrily boycotted slashdot for a week, the vast majority of users did nothing. So much for the big popular revolt, I guess. Market away, Slashdot! Sigh.
I wonder how much it would cost to get "frivilous lawsuit insurance". Basically the same deal as car insurance - they pay for the lawyers, and even for the settlement if you lose, minus a deductible, and up to a maximum.
The problem is that it'd probably be too expensive, because the only people buying the insurance would be those with a high risk of a lawsuit. And even then you'd probably have to abide by certain "self-censorship" rules in order to keep the insurance.
If only it were easier/cheaper to get a law degree from home, part time...
Slashdot Mirror
But it does make apparent who is supposedly responsible for the domain. You are the one responsible for your domains, aren't you? So why don't you willing to take phone calls from people regarding the domains you are responsible for?
Because no one has any reason to call me on the phone regarding my domain names. That said, I didn't lie about my phone number on my domain name application. The number I gave is a valid efax number.
And as far as spamcop goes, why do you want outsiders to police your domains? Why don't you adopt a Harry Truman "the buck stops here" attitude and police your domains yourself? If more people did that we would have a lot less spam.
Huh? What are you talking about? I do police my domains. Spamcop is for reporting. Because of the hundreds of spam complaints I have received to date not a single one has been accurate. They've all been from idiots who don't know how to read headers. So I've shut off my postmaster@ accounts, because I'm tired of listening to the whining idiots.
Excuse me -- I didn't realize it took a Ph.D. to decode e-mail headers!
My comment was more directed at "you" in general, meaning people in general. That said, I can't decode the damn things myself. I use spamcop.
because the way you just did with this statement made you come across as just another net-asshole with an (unjustified) superiority complex.
I apologize.
If you can that is because you probably have only registered vanity domains used by no one other than yourself...
Yep, I have a net total of two static IP addresses. My server, and my home DSL connection. And I know from the logs that not a single piece of spam has been sent from either.
If that's what you mean by vanity domains, pointing to a single IP address, then yep, that's what I have. If you meant that no one other than I uses the domains, then you're quite mistaken.
That already exists. Lie to an agent of the government and get caught, it is called perjury and is already punishable by imprisonment.
Lying to an agent of the government is not perjury. You have to be under oath to commit perjury.
Ensuring that no one lies to NSI is (in theory) a good idea so that all domains have a valid contact person. If you don't like that you can register your domain in another country with less restrictive registration requirements.
Fortunately the government can't enact ex-post facto laws, so the domains I've already registered don't apply. As for new ones, I guess I'll have to buy a P.O. Box.
Just don't get pissed off if I block your domain due the lack of a valid contact person to complain to when someone in your domain spams me...
Making my address and phone number public information does nothing to stop spam. If you want to report spam from my domain, use spamcop. I don't trust you to read the headers properly. I haven't had a single piece of spam sent from my domain ever.
It doesn't have Score:2 attached to it.
I don't know, is it illegal to buy a house or a car with bogus id and personal information? If it is, it certaintly should be illegal here.
In that case you're giving information for a loan. Lying on a loan application is much different. Even so I don't know if you can go to jail for 5 years for it. Maybe though.
i think the the network solutions case is different from yahoo one. i don't know the full story in regards to ns, nor how similar lies are treated in other industries (ie, buying a house or a car). I'd have to find out that before making a decision.
A domain name is hardly a house or a car. It's only $10, and it's paid for upfront. I'd look into what criminal laws there are against lying to radio shack when you buy an ethernet cable.
There's only one reason for this domain name law. The government wants to make it easier to track people who own domain names. Anonymity on the internet simply won't be tolerated.
I guess I should go ahead and buy that P.O. Box. My mail forwarding is about to expire, and I don't want people breaking into my house because of something I put up on my website.
Well yes, you should. You're a free rider, meaning whatever money the networks don't make on you they have to make on the rest of us, increasing our cost for watching television. In most ethical (and economic) systems that's frowned upon.
The networks don't have to make money on anyone. No one is forcing them to use the public airwaves to broadcast their shows. If no one watched commercials, and the networks went out of business, and we used the airwaves for something else, like multicast internet distribution, I'd be perfectly happy.
Also, the networks don't know whether or not I am watching the commercials. If anything, I should only feel guilty if I'm a neilson family. Or do you suggest that it's immoral to watch the commercials and not buy the products as well?
I think you have a pretty screwed up concept of most ethical and economic systems. There are quite a few which include the concept that if no one is being harmed it can't possibly be wrong.
Because television is not a two way medium, any payment for television constitutes payment for content.
For cable stations, perhaps, but network stations are available for free. Payments for network stations constitute payment for not making the effort of installing an antenna on your roof.
Also, even to the extent that you are paying the content makers for their content, this only covers some of the costs. Even a slashdot "subscription" doesn't block all ads forever. I'm sure if you were willing to pay $2/hour for skipped commercials, and there was an efficient way for this to be monitored and collected, that the content providers would be more than happy to let you.
I'm saying you should recompense the networks for the shows you watch.
I let them use the airwaves over and through my house.
They don't, and can't, factor in that you skip them entirely.
They most certainly can and do. They don't want to, but they do.
You do want to pay your fair share for the shows you watch, don't you?
Of course I don't. If I had to pay for television, I wouldn't watch it. As it is I watch very little television anyway. Mainly PBS, which I generally turn off between shows (when the commercials run). When I do watch network television I generally browse slashdot during the commercials (I watch TV with my all-in-wonder). Should I feel guilty about that?
Oh, I see you disagree with me so I should go find a better source for my opinion?
No, you call me an idiot and a dumb ass, so I don't give you the courtesy of a meaningful response.
I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses.
I'd go the way of the Audio Home Recording Act. Put a tax on PVRs, then make it legal to do anything you want with them.
The problem with TV is that I'm ALREADY PAYING for it.
Huh? I'm already paying for the internet too.
TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention
It's worse than that because ultimately it is the consumers themselves who pay for those ads, in the form of higher product prices. Why not just tax consumer products directly and give the money to the television networks? At least we wouldn't have to watch the ads.
Watch PBS. No ads, no pay (but you should donate money.)
PBS most certainly has ads. They're just placed in positions that are easy to skip (between shows).
Watch the networks. Once in a while something amusing is on (but you should watch the ads.)
Should as in morally? You're saying it's immoral to go to the bathroom during the commercials?
I may be mistaking your tone, but are you saying that making it illegal to give bogus information is a bad thing?
I'm certainly saying that it shouldn't be more than a civil penalty reflecting the actual damage done to the company, perhaps tripled for punitive damages. Certainly not 5 years in jail.
My opinion is, is you're getting something for free in rreturn for your information, you should be required to hold up your end of the deal...
I'm certainly not getting anything for free from Network Solutions.
again, no one is forcing you to use these free products and services.
Two problems with that argument. First of all, Network Solutions has a monopoly. So if I want to get a domain name, I don't have a choice. Network Solutions was handed this monopoly by the government, so this in essence amounts to government censorship.
Secondly, because the charges are criminal, even if someone uses a registrar which collects information (under requirement by Network Solutions), and lies to that registrar, and that registrar doesn't care, they still can be prosecuted, because their crime is a crime against the state, not a crime against an individual.
Are you suggesting that the government should pass criminal penalties up to five years in prison for lying? To Network Solutions, to Yahoo, to your girlfriend, to anyone?
I thought you'd be able to make the leap that the actual law didn't use the word "CD", since it was written before CDs existed. Maybe there should be a little IQ indicator next people's names, so we can decide what reading level to phrase our responses.
Although I don't recall hearing about DigitalConsumer.org on slashdot I'm sure not a few likeminded individuals were involved, and we were definatly involved in the huge public upcry [slashdot.org] that halted the passage of the bill.
I find it very naiive of you to believe that slashdot, let alone the public, had anything to do with the halt of the Hollings' bill. That had much more to do with Intel and AOL, and the fact that anyone with half a brain could see that the bill would do more harm than good to anyone except a very select few media companies.
The rest of your post I disagree with, but I don't feel like arguing. The point of my post was to be humorous more than to change people's opinions. If you like the big fucking ads, the threats of lawsuits, moderators with unlimited points, and the $rtbl, I'm not going to change your mind any.
Congress is already trying to make it a criminal act to lie to Network Solutions, punishible by up to 5 years in prison. How much longer before they try to do the same for lying to Yahoo?
Really? Do people really get that many calls? Wouldn't you just unplug the phone at some point?
I used to get 3 or 4 a week. Then I started signing up for everything using my cell phone number. Now I don't get any.
Shouldn't you have to opt into ads on the freeway?
I was joking. Hence the :). The solution is quite simple for both slashdot users and yahoo users. If you don't want the ads, block them, or don't use the service. For bonus points complain and/or start your own site.
The original lyrics are also copyrighted and can't be reproduced for wide distribution (even as a vocal transformation) without consent.
Not exactly. A cover song can be publically performed with a simple ASCAP (or BMI or whatever) compulsary license. To be on the safe side, they should definately have an ASCAP license, that's not all that expensive. They still could run into problems because of the fact that they are allowing the songs to be downloaded. Technically, they should probably be paying Harry Fox (or someone similar) "7.1 cents per CD sold if the song is 5 minutes or under. Songs over 5 minutes cost slightly more, based on a rate of 1.35 cents per minute."
If you don't like the font you can change the theme. Or submit your own theme and I'll put it up.
but shouldn't I have to opt-in to ads? :)
I already use mozilla to bust the doubleclick ads. Maybe I'll look into junkbuster... But hey, slashdot and yahoo both have to make money somehow, right?
Remember how everyone got all up in arms about Slashdot's plans to implement Big Fucking Ads? Well, even if slashdot readers were pissed and angrily boycotted slashdot for a week, the vast majority of users did nothing. So much for the big popular revolt, I guess. Market away, Slashdot! Sigh.
Maybe your concept of "the world" means "USA" or something like that?
No, I was being sarcastic.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
I just wish they'd broaden into more than just law, then I could ditch slashdot completely.
I wonder how much it would cost to get "frivilous lawsuit insurance". Basically the same deal as car insurance - they pay for the lawyers, and even for the settlement if you lose, minus a deductible, and up to a maximum.
The problem is that it'd probably be too expensive, because the only people buying the insurance would be those with a high risk of a lawsuit. And even then you'd probably have to abide by certain "self-censorship" rules in order to keep the insurance.
If only it were easier/cheaper to get a law degree from home, part time...