> For example: A fight to the death between Bill Gates and Tux is a much healthier thing to see than them having sex (exactly how they would do it is beyond my imagination).
Note that the site says nothing about where Tux's baseball bat ends up, so it could be Tux and Gates in a fight to the death or Tux about to have a little "fun" with Billy-boy. Nice thing about the picture is that either way, it sounds like a happy ending.
> I was watching a movie on TBS a few nights ago... They showed a persons heart being ripped out while at the same time bleeping the word "bastard"...
I saw a newscaster apologize for "bad language" when the unedited amateur tape of the first plane going into the tower 9/11 (with the camera holder going "Holy fucking Christ!" or some variant thereof) was aired. 3000 dead, and the news guy is worried about bad fucking language.
> The INS does a pretty good job of scrutinizing our right to enter the U.S.
at every entry, presumably because it is hard to get undesireables out once here.
Judging from the fact that $BIGPERCENTAGE of the Bad Asses of 9/11 were here on expired student visas, if I had mod points, I'd give you (+1, Funny) for the assertion that INS is doing a good job as gatekeepers.
> Because I am a foriegner
working here on a valid work visa, I can be held without charge for up to 7 days and tried by a military
tribunal for this action
"Ooooh! Look at the nice shiny hook with the worm on it!" (OK, I'll bite;-)
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
> First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
> The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
> I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested
-- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in.
Although some jurisdictions have passed special laws requiring third parties to inform law enforcement of suspected or actual criminal activity - for instance, the obligation of teachers to report child abuse), DMCA violations aren't on that list in any jurisdiction I know of.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do. (Although you are free to engage in civil disobedience and face the consequences, I don't believe you have an ethical right to impose those sanctions on your associates without their prior informed consent.)
> Spam is a major monkey wrench in electronic communications, but it's the same way with phone numbers!
If you don't want phone calls, don't give your number out.
Yeah right. For the first time in two years, I left my phone plugged in. Three telemarketing calls, all for a complete stranger who has never lived there.
Phone stays unplugged from now on.
All I Want For Next Christmas is a federal do-not-call registry and a corresponding law allowing for a $500 private right of action, and a local phone company that uses, as a business model, a h4x0r3d switching system that supports a "*[2-digits]" combination that customers can punch in on their phone keypads to automatically log the ANI number and print off the paperwork for a civil suit.
You know, how "*69" gives you "Number not available?" But there's a "*harassing-call" combo for harassing phone calls that logs it for the cops, should you press charges? I want a "*fuck-telemarketers" combo that logs it and authorizes the phone company to file suit on my behalf.
The phone company files the suit on my behalf. I get one month's free phone service for every telemarketer they nail. They get the remainder of the $500. And in all probability, every customer in the country after the first few geeks say "Wow, I got my first 3 months' worth of phone service for free in the first week!"
> This really isn't anything new... Our good friends at DoubleClick [...]
Hey, it goes way back before that.
This is just a newfangled way of turning a bunch of ICMP packets into "ICBM addresses (Jargon File, 1994), but on a color screen, rather than a humongous plotter;-)
Iesus? You mean the guy whose Dad (depending on who you ask) put the copy control measures into His creatures? Yeah, there's a story behind him.
They say He was fed up with Dad's finite licensing scheme, so He came up with a hack to extend the license indefinitely. Dad thought it was pretty spiff, but, Dad being the holy roller type that He was, had to mete out the usual GMCA punishment anyways. Sorta like Sklyarov, y'know?
Of course, getting nailed to a tree to give the world's critters access to the eternal life hack is probably farther than most/.ers are willing to go to prove a point.
Anyways, that's the story. His followers mean well, even if they sometimes come across a bit like RMS talking about the GPL, but that's probably because this all happened some 2000 years before P2P, which is probably where that line about Iesus's server being the only one through which the hack can be downloaded and still work.;-)
> > on behalf of its client (JHVH-1, a.k.a. "God") > > You *do* know that Hebrew has no J sound, right?
Leaving aside the SubGenius reference I was trying to make, it occurs to me that that particular spelling would be, well, unpronounceable, wouldn't it?
I mean, I'll be damned if I'm gonna try and the copy control mechanism JHVH-1 applied to His name and His chosen people. I mean, in this case, I might literally be damned;-)
> This sort of puts a whole new spin on this whole "Cure for Cancer" thing. The study seems to suggest that cancer is inevitable, and any attempts by our body to avoid it result in our own death.
Well, of course it should. These scientists are in contravention of the GMCA - Genetic Modification Copyright Act.
God licenses His creatures to operate a DNA-replication machine for a certain number of years, depending on the sort of DNA involved. Mayfly licenses are good for a day or two. Giant redwood licenses have expiry dates measured in millennia.
This is merely the DNACCA (DNA Copyright Control Association) invoking "self-help" on behalf of its client (JHVH-1, a.k.a. "God") whenever a licensee reverse-engineers its DNA with the intent of circumventing the digital rights management technology supplied with each organism.
(Just great, now we're gonna have to put up with 1000 years of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen and Michael Eisner saying they're not about making money, they're only doing God's work on a human scale...)
> Now toss in the fact that most monitor's (and all TVs) are "hot" - they're far more blue than they should be since it's a
cheap way for the manufacturer to make them look "bright.
OK, that's true. But as one who doesn't normally use lighting other than what's on the monitor, I find anything less than 9300K to look horribly yellowed-out and sickly.
I, too, saw a pack GE Reveal bulbs on sale at my local hardware store. Unsure if compact fluorescents would fit in the fittings I had, I tried a pack of Reveals. Side-by-side with the regular incandescents, the difference is like night and day. For those of us that like high color temperatures (hey, for me, the light of the monitor is more "natural" than sunlight;-), Reveals rock.
> Spam is annoying, sure, but junk mail is heaping piles of dead trees.
Oh no! He's figured it out!
Anti-spammers aren't really upset about the theft of their time and computing resources, we're all just agents of The Lumber Cartel trying to increase the rate at which wood products are consumed!
> My moral dilema is, do I help the guy to make a quick buck (which also makes the wife happy) or do I stick to my guns and say spam is wrong?
There are too many spammers in Bakersfield for that reference to uniquely identify him.
But if you'd post a sample of his spam, the Lumber Cartel (TINLC) will recognize him, get his T1 yanked by his provider, and then his network of IIS boxen will be secured for free;-)
> but if fucking C++ source code can be considered speech, why isn't "Do you want a longer penis?"
Because of this:
Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. The ancient concept that ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality. We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT.,
397 U.S. 728 May 4, 1970.
Or, in CyberPromo vs. AOL:
"In sum, we find that since AOL is not a state actor and there has been no state action by AOL's activities under any of the three tests for state action enunciated by our Court of Appeals in Mark, Cyber has no right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to send unsolicited e-mail....."
Or CompuServe vs. Cyberpromo/Sanford Wallace
"Defendants' intentional use of plaintiff's proprietary computer equipment exceeds plaintiff's consent and, indeed, continued after repeated demands that defendants cease. Such use is an actionable trespass to plaintiff's chattel. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides no defense for such conduct."
Leaving aside the fact that the First Amendment is a constraint on Congress, not private operators, it seems clear that commercial speech is (rightfully) not protected to the same extent as expressive speech.
> on behalf of a non-profit organization or charity
There's an interesting twist to this exemption, and it's borderline fraud. Although some credit counselling organizations are legitimate, others are merely non-profit "fronts", or "shells" designed to herd low-income people into consolidating their debts at higher rates with unscrupulous creditors.
Thus, some scumbag credit card company can "legitimately" telemarket by having its "charitable" arm phone people up and say "We're here to help you lower your debt servicing costs. We're a non-profit credit counselling service." Of course, all their counsellors recommend the same credit card, but the mark^H^H^H^Hcustomer doesn't know that.
Still, even a limited do-not-call law is better than none at all.
(Unlike spam, where lawbreaking is encouraged by the negligible cost to the sender, telemarketers at least have some incentive not to call those of us who wish to eat our supper in peace.)
> Plus, this law only works if YOU report it. It is not as if the police are going
to monitor every mailserver in California and look for spam.
No, this just doesn't work.
It's like calling the cops after you've been the victim of a B&E. A nice guy or gal in a spiffy uniform will come and take a report, and you'll never get your stuff back, nor will the perp be pursued.
Because the CA law lacks a right of private action, your reporting it isn't enough - the cops have to decide that it's a case worth prosecuting. Given that cops perceive (IMHO rightfully) that they have better things to do with their time than chase down every two-bit spambag, nothing will happen to spammers who break the law.
(And in the defence of the cops, how do you prove that the perp is in CA? Sure, the reverse DNS on the throwaway dialup account may match to a CA ISP, but the perp could be in Florida or Dallas or Michigan, dialing long-distance. Officer Friendly's got better things to do with his time than chase down wild geese with recalcitrant ISPs.)
> I'd also like to see a legal prosecution kit for this. Not all of us have the money to pay an attorney to prosecute someone under this
statute.
Which is to say, that it doesn't matter whether the CA anti-spam law is constitutional or not, it's unenforceable, and therefore, worthless.
I'd rather have no anti-spam law, than a toothless one.
Speaking of laws, when the fsck is the DA in Dallas, TX, gonna do something about a certain spammer who has an affinity for AT&T dialup ISPs and beast pr0n?
> Write an audio driver that accepts audio data like any audio device but writes the data to a file.
Actually, this, too, incurs loss of quality.
MP3 is a lossy format. I shudder to think what a 128kbps MP3 is going to sound like after two passes through the encoder, even if the second pass is at 320.
The only "good" workaround would be to get at the decrypted stream of MP3 frames, and write them out to a disk. (Of course, DMCA violation.)
Any of the solutions that involve playing a compressed music stream through an audio port (digital, analog, or capturing the WAV data as it goes to the sound card) are going to be like recompressing.JPGs, and sound like ass.
(Thankfully, none of this matters, since nobody will use crap^H^H^H^Hnapster anyways;-)
Suppose you have a private and public key. When you download a.NAP, it's encrypted by the client on the other end with your public key. The only box that can decrypt the.NAP is yours, as only your box has the private key.
Assuming this is the implementation, in order to crack.NAP, you'd need a mechanism of sending your private key along with any.NAP file you send to another user.
Since it's a closed-source client, and since the primary use of a hack to supply private keys along with the.NAP file will be to circumvent the copy control measure of the.NAP file format, any attempt to implement an open-source whatusedtobenapster client will run afoul of the DMCA.
Not that I can see anyone wasting time implementing this, when there are free (as in speech and beer) alternatives.
You can only download a certain number of tracks per month.
And last, but not least, from the "new FAQ": "Why should I pay when I can get it for free somewhere else?", the answer is "You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?"
After I wiped the coffee off my keyboard, I kept reading, and saw "file sharing communities that pay copyright holders and provide simple, useful tools to help you do what you want with your digital music collection are going to prevail."
Well, sure, but the last time I checked, paying for the privilege of being Hilary Rosen's bitch and copy-crippling my MP3s qualified as "what I want to do with my music collection".
I propose that for 2002, all articles concerning RIAA-endorsed music subscription services go under "It's funny. Laugh".
> I would predict that a shift of equilibrium is occurring, and it'll take another couple of years before the new balance
point is reached. It will be interesting then to look back on Your Rights Online posts [slashdot.org] from this
period and see how drastically our own positions have been altered by time and events.
Agreed.
When a man is out to kill you, there's only one way to protect yourself. Kill him first.
There are thousands of fanatics lined up, ready to die, so long as they can see to it that they kill tens of thousands of us in the process. The only thing that's stopped them until now was several thousand miles of water. Now they've learned how to travel.
It's been a rude awakening for most of us, myself included. Over the past few months, I've come to realize that EFF was more interested in protecting spammers (Intel) and terrorists (as per this article) than protecting me.
So I stopped supporting them financially and sent the money to the Free Software Foundation instead. They care just as fervently about fair use and the ability to use the software of your choosing, and more importantly, are doing something about it. They produce code, not lawsuits. And I sleep better at night.
> My concern is tempered, somewhat, by the knowledge that similar fights have
occurred every time this country has gone to war. We--and our rights--have survived more serious conflicts
than this; we will survive this one too.
As someone whose politics are somewhat right-of-center, thank you for saying this.
I, too, have issues with some of what's going on, but the hyperbole issuing forth from ACLU, EFF, and the like, is just ridiculous. If I believed them, I'd be wearing tinfoil. Good grief.
As for tribunals, I agree - and the UCMJ gives a defendant a hell of a lot more protection than our enemies gave us on 9/11.
As for "roundups" and detainments, of the 5000 scheduled for interviews, they're all informed that participation is entirely voluntary. And of the 1000 detained, it's clearly disrupted the enemy's network of cells to the point that they've been unable to mount a sustained attack on us. Like it or not, it's worked. Proof that it's worked will be tonight, when nothing gets blown up in countless New Year's Eve celebrations around the Western world. (Yes, I'm posting this before midnight, and yes, I have put my money where my mouth is.:-)
I also think you're onto something with your meta-analysis of EFF's "Aschroft's 76% support is a veneer" notion. To wit, you wrote:
> My views aside, to suggest that this is a veneer is either to suggest that Gallup's methodology is flawed or people are outright lying to the pollsters.
How about (c) all of the above?
After all, if you were scared by the "phantoms of lost liberty" speech (that is, scared by radical civil libertarians taking your Attorney-General out-of-context), wouldn't you lie to the pollsters, too?
I mean, suppose you swallow the ACLU bait, and let them you out of your wits. A week later, a complete stranger calls you up, claims to be from Gallup, and asks you questions about your politics. Given that it's a phone call, you're not sure if he's from the Gallup or the FBI. Unless you're a really dumb civil libertarian, how else would you answer?
Finally, since I'm sure it'll be trotted out by someone in this thread, I'll address that Ben Franklin quote.
For better or for worse, the people have chosen security over liberty. Sucks to be you. Deal. (Or do you somehow have such a monopoly over truth that you think your views should predominate, regardless of what the rest of the citizens have so clearly asked for?)
> Donate money to the EFF. For your Bday, ask that people donate money in your name.
"For my birthday, I'd like to make sure all my friends are prosecuted for providing aid and comfort to subversive organizations too. That way, I won't be alone in joycamp!"
Look, if you wanna support a misguided cause, go ahead, but please don't drag your friends down with you.
(Can't we get an organization that lobbies for fair use rights over digital media without trying to deny law enforcement the tools they need to combat terror?)
> bin Laden: Believes his moral values are more important than your freedoms. >
Rosen: Believes corporate profits are more important than your freedoms.
Nitpick: Both are evil, merely use moral values (one uses a religion, the other uses the value of "don't steal") as a cloak of respectability in promulgating their evil worldview.
Neither bin Laden's values, nor Rosen's, are moral.
And both target children - one by owning "religious" schools, the other through "Copyright is cool!" classes in government-run schools.
And you forgot one more important similarity, which is this:
Evil makes you ugly. I wouldn't fuck either of 'em with a stolen dick.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably something like this.
Note that the site says nothing about where Tux's baseball bat ends up, so it could be Tux and Gates in a fight to the death or Tux about to have a little "fun" with Billy-boy. Nice thing about the picture is that either way, it sounds like a happy ending.
I saw a newscaster apologize for "bad language" when the unedited amateur tape of the first plane going into the tower 9/11 (with the camera holder going "Holy fucking Christ!" or some variant thereof) was aired. 3000 dead, and the news guy is worried about bad fucking language.
On June 6, 1944, he was playing Panzer General. And very poorly. ;-)
Judging from the fact that $BIGPERCENTAGE of the Bad Asses of 9/11 were here on expired student visas, if I had mod points, I'd give you (+1, Funny) for the assertion that INS is doing a good job as gatekeepers.
"Ooooh! Look at the nice shiny hook with the worm on it!" (OK, I'll bite ;-)
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
> First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
> The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
> I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested -- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in.
Although some jurisdictions have passed special laws requiring third parties to inform law enforcement of suspected or actual criminal activity - for instance, the obligation of teachers to report child abuse), DMCA violations aren't on that list in any jurisdiction I know of.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do. (Although you are free to engage in civil disobedience and face the consequences, I don't believe you have an ethical right to impose those sanctions on your associates without their prior informed consent.)
Yeah right. For the first time in two years, I left my phone plugged in. Three telemarketing calls, all for a complete stranger who has never lived there.
Phone stays unplugged from now on.
All I Want For Next Christmas is a federal do-not-call registry and a corresponding law allowing for a $500 private right of action, and a local phone company that uses, as a business model, a h4x0r3d switching system that supports a "*[2-digits]" combination that customers can punch in on their phone keypads to automatically log the ANI number and print off the paperwork for a civil suit.
You know, how "*69" gives you "Number not available?" But there's a "*harassing-call" combo for harassing phone calls that logs it for the cops, should you press charges? I want a "*fuck-telemarketers" combo that logs it and authorizes the phone company to file suit on my behalf.
The phone company files the suit on my behalf. I get one month's free phone service for every telemarketer they nail. They get the remainder of the $500. And in all probability, every customer in the country after the first few geeks say "Wow, I got my first 3 months' worth of phone service for free in the first week!"
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Hey, it goes way back before that.
This is just a newfangled way of turning a bunch of ICMP packets into "ICBM addresses (Jargon File, 1994), but on a color screen, rather than a humongous plotter ;-)
Iesus? You mean the guy whose Dad (depending on who you ask) put the copy control measures into His creatures? Yeah, there's a story behind him.
They say He was fed up with Dad's finite licensing scheme, so He came up with a hack to extend the license indefinitely. Dad thought it was pretty spiff, but, Dad being the holy roller type that He was, had to mete out the usual GMCA punishment anyways. Sorta like Sklyarov, y'know?
Of course, getting nailed to a tree to give the world's critters access to the eternal life hack is probably farther than most /.ers are willing to go to prove a point.
Anyways, that's the story. His followers mean well, even if they sometimes come across a bit like RMS talking about the GPL, but that's probably because this all happened some 2000 years before P2P, which is probably where that line about Iesus's server being the only one through which the hack can be downloaded and still work. ;-)
>
> You *do* know that Hebrew has no J sound, right?
Leaving aside the SubGenius reference I was trying to make, it occurs to me that that particular spelling would be, well, unpronounceable, wouldn't it?
I mean, I'll be damned if I'm gonna try and the copy control mechanism JHVH-1 applied to His name and His chosen people. I mean, in this case, I might literally be damned ;-)
Well, of course it should. These scientists are in contravention of the GMCA - Genetic Modification Copyright Act.
God licenses His creatures to operate a DNA-replication machine for a certain number of years, depending on the sort of DNA involved. Mayfly licenses are good for a day or two. Giant redwood licenses have expiry dates measured in millennia.
This is merely the DNACCA (DNA Copyright Control Association) invoking "self-help" on behalf of its client (JHVH-1, a.k.a. "God") whenever a licensee reverse-engineers its DNA with the intent of circumventing the digital rights management technology supplied with each organism.
(Just great, now we're gonna have to put up with 1000 years of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen and Michael Eisner saying they're not about making money, they're only doing God's work on a human scale...)
cheap way for the manufacturer to make them look "bright.
OK, that's true. But as one who doesn't normally use lighting other than what's on the monitor, I find anything less than 9300K to look horribly yellowed-out and sickly.
I, too, saw a pack GE Reveal bulbs on sale at my local hardware store. Unsure if compact fluorescents would fit in the fittings I had, I tried a pack of Reveals. Side-by-side with the regular incandescents, the difference is like night and day. For those of us that like high color temperatures (hey, for me, the light of the monitor is more "natural" than sunlight
Oh no! He's figured it out!
Anti-spammers aren't really upset about the theft of their time and computing resources, we're all just agents of The Lumber Cartel trying to increase the rate at which wood products are consumed!
> No, it's A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S.
Moderators on crack again. This isn't -1, Flamebait, nor is it +1, Funny. It's +1, Informative.
There are too many spammers in Bakersfield for that reference to uniquely identify him.
But if you'd post a sample of his spam, the Lumber Cartel (TINLC) will recognize him, get his T1 yanked by his provider, and then his network of IIS boxen will be secured for free ;-)
Because of this:
Or, in CyberPromo vs. AOL:Or CompuServe vs. Cyberpromo/Sanford Wallace
Leaving aside the fact that the First Amendment is a constraint on Congress, not private operators, it seems clear that commercial speech is (rightfully) not protected to the same extent as expressive speech.There's an interesting twist to this exemption, and it's borderline fraud. Although some credit counselling organizations are legitimate, others are merely non-profit "fronts", or "shells" designed to herd low-income people into consolidating their debts at higher rates with unscrupulous creditors.
Thus, some scumbag credit card company can "legitimately" telemarket by having its "charitable" arm phone people up and say "We're here to help you lower your debt servicing costs. We're a non-profit credit counselling service." Of course, all their counsellors recommend the same credit card, but the mark^H^H^H^Hcustomer doesn't know that.
Still, even a limited do-not-call law is better than none at all.
(Unlike spam, where lawbreaking is encouraged by the negligible cost to the sender, telemarketers at least have some incentive not to call those of us who wish to eat our supper in peace.)
No, this just doesn't work.
It's like calling the cops after you've been the victim of a B&E. A nice guy or gal in a spiffy uniform will come and take a report, and you'll never get your stuff back, nor will the perp be pursued.
Because the CA law lacks a right of private action, your reporting it isn't enough - the cops have to decide that it's a case worth prosecuting. Given that cops perceive (IMHO rightfully) that they have better things to do with their time than chase down every two-bit spambag, nothing will happen to spammers who break the law.
(And in the defence of the cops, how do you prove that the perp is in CA? Sure, the reverse DNS on the throwaway dialup account may match to a CA ISP, but the perp could be in Florida or Dallas or Michigan, dialing long-distance. Officer Friendly's got better things to do with his time than chase down wild geese with recalcitrant ISPs.)
Which is to say, that it doesn't matter whether the CA anti-spam law is constitutional or not, it's unenforceable, and therefore, worthless.
I'd rather have no anti-spam law, than a toothless one.
Speaking of laws, when the fsck is the DA in Dallas, TX, gonna do something about a certain spammer who has an affinity for AT&T dialup ISPs and beast pr0n?
Actually, this, too, incurs loss of quality.
MP3 is a lossy format. I shudder to think what a 128kbps MP3 is going to sound like after two passes through the encoder, even if the second pass is at 320.
The only "good" workaround would be to get at the decrypted stream of MP3 frames, and write them out to a disk. (Of course, DMCA violation.)
Any of the solutions that involve playing a compressed music stream through an audio port (digital, analog, or capturing the WAV data as it goes to the sound card) are going to be like recompressing .JPGs, and sound like ass.
(Thankfully, none of this matters, since nobody will use crap^H^H^H^Hnapster anyways ;-)
Suppose you have a private and public key. When you download a .NAP, it's encrypted by the client on the other end with your public key. The only box that can decrypt the .NAP is yours, as only your box has the private key.
Assuming this is the implementation, in order to crack .NAP, you'd need a mechanism of sending your private key along with any .NAP file you send to another user.
Since it's a closed-source client, and since the primary use of a hack to supply private keys along with the .NAP file will be to circumvent the copy control measure of the .NAP file format, any attempt to implement an open-source whatusedtobenapster client will run afoul of the DMCA.
Not that I can see anyone wasting time implementing this, when there are free (as in speech and beer) alternatives.
- It costs money.
- It's not MP3.
- It's MP3, but with copy protection wrappers.
- You can only download a certain number of tracks per month.
And last, but not least, from the "new FAQ": "Why should I pay when I can get it for free somewhere else?", the answer is "You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?"After I wiped the coffee off my keyboard, I kept reading, and saw "file sharing communities that pay copyright holders and provide simple, useful tools to help you do what you want with your digital music collection are going to prevail."
Well, sure, but the last time I checked, paying for the privilege of being Hilary Rosen's bitch and copy-crippling my MP3s qualified as "what I want to do with my music collection".
I propose that for 2002, all articles concerning RIAA-endorsed music subscription services go under "It's funny. Laugh".
Agreed.
When a man is out to kill you, there's only one way to protect yourself. Kill him first. There are thousands of fanatics lined up, ready to die, so long as they can see to it that they kill tens of thousands of us in the process. The only thing that's stopped them until now was several thousand miles of water. Now they've learned how to travel.
It's been a rude awakening for most of us, myself included. Over the past few months, I've come to realize that EFF was more interested in protecting spammers (Intel) and terrorists (as per this article) than protecting me.
So I stopped supporting them financially and sent the money to the Free Software Foundation instead. They care just as fervently about fair use and the ability to use the software of your choosing, and more importantly, are doing something about it. They produce code, not lawsuits. And I sleep better at night.
As someone whose politics are somewhat right-of-center, thank you for saying this.
I, too, have issues with some of what's going on, but the hyperbole issuing forth from ACLU, EFF, and the like, is just ridiculous. If I believed them, I'd be wearing tinfoil. Good grief.
As for tribunals, I agree - and the UCMJ gives a defendant a hell of a lot more protection than our enemies gave us on 9/11.
As for "roundups" and detainments, of the 5000 scheduled for interviews, they're all informed that participation is entirely voluntary. And of the 1000 detained, it's clearly disrupted the enemy's network of cells to the point that they've been unable to mount a sustained attack on us. Like it or not, it's worked. Proof that it's worked will be tonight, when nothing gets blown up in countless New Year's Eve celebrations around the Western world. (Yes, I'm posting this before midnight, and yes, I have put my money where my mouth is. :-)
I also think you're onto something with your meta-analysis of EFF's "Aschroft's 76% support is a veneer" notion. To wit, you wrote:
> My views aside, to suggest that this is a veneer is either to suggest that Gallup's methodology is flawed or people are outright lying to the pollsters.
How about (c) all of the above?
After all, if you were scared by the "phantoms of lost liberty" speech (that is, scared by radical civil libertarians taking your Attorney-General out-of-context), wouldn't you lie to the pollsters, too? I mean, suppose you swallow the ACLU bait, and let them you out of your wits. A week later, a complete stranger calls you up, claims to be from Gallup, and asks you questions about your politics. Given that it's a phone call, you're not sure if he's from the Gallup or the FBI. Unless you're a really dumb civil libertarian, how else would you answer?
Finally, since I'm sure it'll be trotted out by someone in this thread, I'll address that Ben Franklin quote.
For better or for worse, the people have chosen security over liberty. Sucks to be you. Deal. (Or do you somehow have such a monopoly over truth that you think your views should predominate, regardless of what the rest of the citizens have so clearly asked for?)
"For my birthday, I'd like to make sure all my friends are prosecuted for providing aid and comfort to subversive organizations too. That way, I won't be alone in joycamp!"
Look, if you wanna support a misguided cause, go ahead, but please don't drag your friends down with you.
(Can't we get an organization that lobbies for fair use rights over digital media without trying to deny law enforcement the tools they need to combat terror?)
> Rosen: Believes corporate profits are more important than your freedoms.
Nitpick: Both are evil, merely use moral values (one uses a religion, the other uses the value of "don't steal") as a cloak of respectability in promulgating their evil worldview. Neither bin Laden's values, nor Rosen's, are moral.
And both target children - one by owning "religious" schools, the other through "Copyright is cool!" classes in government-run schools.
And you forgot one more important similarity, which is this:
Evil makes you ugly. I wouldn't fuck either of 'em with a stolen dick.