One day, about two years ago, I received one spam too many, and ended up writing a self-righteous screed, which some of you may find entertaining, which I called The Anti Spam Manifesto. It is, alas, completely fictional. But don't tell the spammers that...
If, as you say in your post, "DIVX was *evil*," why did you work on it? Why did you help to create something you knew no one would want, and which you yourself didn't want to have?
I'm not trying to be hostile. It's just that I learned my lesson on issues like this a long time ago, and I've made it clear to myself (and my employers) that I will not work on projects with which I personally disagree. Perhaps I'm in a better position than most (and I also don't put myself in the way of such projects), but I've never fully understood why someone would spend their precious creative energy on something they personally felt was pointless, wrong, or ethically bankrupt.
Clearly, these people are not very clever. It seems fairly clear to me from this "horror story" that the movie theatre model of film distribution has been marginalized by advancing technology.
We observe that people are not willing to go to the theater, but are willing to buy VCDs. Now, would a clever person either:
Release to VCD first at, say, a 50% premium over bitlegged VCDs, thereby establishing themselves as the source of the highest quality copies of that movie (and then release to theaters a couple of weeks later, thereby getting all the people who want to see the film in all its high-resolution wide-screen THX glory); or,
Whine shrilly about "piracy" and your rapidly-eroding intellectual "property" rights?
The environment is changing. Organisms (and organizations) that do not evolve will end up as an exhibit under glass in a museum. I guarantee you the environment will not change to suit your whims. Start changing the way you think about this stuff; the ulcer you save may be your own.
Yes, but when you're talking about counterfeiting in commercially significant quantities, the encryption scheme doesn't enter into it. All the encryption scheme accomplishes is to prevent people from turning the MPEG datastream into plaintext. But a high-volume counterfeiter doesn't duplicate at that level; they duplicate the raw bits coming off the read head.
The DVD player in your living room has no way of knowing whether the disc you're playing was legitimately stamped by the studio, or whether it's a precise bit-for-bit copy stamped in Malasia. So it's fairly easy to demonstrate the encryption scheme fails at its stated purpose.
I've thought about this a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that the movie industry really has nothing to worry about from unauthorized copying. The facts, simply, are these:
DVDs are cheaper to produce than video tapes. A lot of manual intervention is required in the mass duplication of video tapes. Basically, you have a wall of VCRs which record at 2x normal speed. So it takes about 45 minutes to make a batch of 200 or so tapes. These machines are frequently attended by a human operator (who costs money). DVDs, on the other hand, are pressed like CDs in an entirely automated process. Thousands can be stamped out in an afternoon. The manufacturing costs for DVDs is less than one-fifth that of video tapes, a savings which, of course, is not passed on to the consumer. So, while their PR department whines shrilly about "piracy" (a term used more for its emotional overtones than its accuracy), the studio is raking in even more money than before.
Copying of DVDs over the Internet is a non-issue, even with the advent of broadband. The number of people who are going to A) spend hours downloading a 5 gigabyte file, and B) spend 5 gigabytes of hard disk space to store it (at a cost of $20/gig) is statistically insignificant. Yes, you'll probably have a college dormitory sharing movies over their 100Mbit LAN. This represents -- what? -- 0.001% of the total market? I'm surprised the studio's accounting department hasn't killed these anti-copying campaigns as an unbelievable waste of money.
Writable DVDs will only slightly change the playfield. The fact is that DVD writers are expensive and are likely to remain that way for the forseeable future. Beyond that? I think we can take a lesson from what happened to the music industry with the proliferation of CD writers and MP3 files: Those companies are as strong as they ever were, and there is no proof they are suffering financially (despite our fervent desires to the contrary).
What I find particularly puzzling is that the hardware companies haven't figured out that they're in the driver's seat. Toshiba et al could have easily told the movie industry, "No, you're not going to get encryption or regional lockouts. Because it doesn't matter. Our manufacturing process costs less than one-fifth of the one you're using now. Once your shareholders find out there's a process that will cut your costs and increase profits and product quality (and we'll make sure they do find out), they'll rake you over the coals until you adopt it. You will use our open, unencrypted platform, and you'll like it. The financial reality leaves you no choice."
I've consistently used Slackware for the last few years, and have grown comfortable with it. It runs on both my desktop and laptop. However, one of Slackware's biggest shortcomings is the difficulty in upgrading system components. The only "sure-fire" way I've found to do this is with a complete re-install, then copy back my stuff.
Since the rest of the world is moving away from libc5 and toward glibc, I'm going to have to upgrade at some point. It's for these reasons that I've been flirting with Debian and RetHat, which appear to be a bit friendlier with their package management. Nevertheless, since I'm most familiar with Slackware, I'd prefer to upgrade what I already have.
So. Can anyone offer any hints/suggestions as to how to make this process as painless as possible? (Yes, I read the Slackware upgrade HOWTO, and it's depressing. Isn't there a better way? If moving to Debian/RedHat turns out to be the best way, then so be it...)
EROS looks like an excellent foundation for, as an example, an electronic funds transfer system, where you absolutely do not want errant/hostile code running around in the system. However, I'm not sure about its utility on more "traditional" desktop systems.
The EROS FAQ mentions that there is no such thing as 'root'; there is no user who has total authority. This is a double-edged sword. While the absence of root makes compromising a system difficult (since there's no Obvious Target to gain access to), it also prevents a legitimate user from manipulating or killing processes that simply refuse to grant the capability.
The scenario I'm envisioning here is an EROS-based Web Terminal. An unethical vendor could supply a terminal which, among other things, transmits your bookmarks and passwords to a central database to be analyzed and resold to telemarketroids. (Or, insert your favorite Dark Scenario here.) In an EROS-based system, there would be no way for a user to Do The UNIX Thing and kill the offending process.
Perhaps it's just my Type-A personality, but I find I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a program or system that could potentially refuse to do what I want, just because some $(EXPLETIVE) programmer thought it was none of my business.
Many months ago, I went to the trouble of submitting my Web site (the same URL as above) to all the major search engines, including Lycos. Several months later, I decided to see which engines could find me. I typed in the fairly unique keyword ewhac and waited to see what happened. All of them turned up reasonable results.
...Except Lycos. After typing in a few other phrases unique to my Web pages, I determined that Lycos somehow failed to index my site after several months. I went to their "Add Your Site" page to re-submit it, and found they have a feature to determine if your page is already indexed. I entered my URL, and Lycos replied, "Yeah, sure, we know about your site," and displayed the correct <TITLE> of the page.
I see. So Lycos will collect URLs, but not actually do anything with them. Cute.
As I was writing this message, I decided to see if anything had changed. I did some keyword searches, but my Web site still didn't turn up. So I returned to the "Add Your Site" page, and checked to see if they still knew about my site. Here's the response I received:
URL: http://www.best.com/~ewhac/ is in the catalog.
Status record doesn't meet index criteria
Nowhere on Lycos could I find a description of their index criteria. My cynical nature suspects that their criteria involve money. Who knows how many other useful or interesting pages they have deliberately failed to index?
Lycos is a bullshit scam. Avoid it. Google has always worked better for me, anyway.
This is the most immature thing I have ever heard about journalism. If MTV's getting it wrong, then why couldn't Shamrock et al. help them out?
You misunderstand. If we are to take Shamrock's message as true, MTV showed an almost aggressive disinterest in their desire to actually educate them about the hacking/cracking scene. Had Shamrock et al. persisted in trying to get their story right, MTV would simply have moved on to another group of people who were willing to give them what they wanted.
In other words, MTV had already written the kind of story they wanted to broadcast, and were simply shopping for willing bodies to put in front of the camera. This practice is exceedingly common, and has a long history. CBS News did a very similar hatchet job over ten years ago on a gathering of highly respected computer luminaries, including RMS, Donald Knuth, Lee Felsenstein, John Gilmore, and others.
These days, the media calls this "journalism." We know it better as Infotainment.
Shamrock simply asserts without corroborative evidence that, "We faked it."
If you were a lame-brained criminal and realized you had been caught on camera, isn't it possible that one of your alibis might be, "Hey, I was just foolin' ya, to make y'all look stupid."
Personally, I would like to believe Shamrock's story. Any organization that would retain someone like Jesse -- a person so amazingly annoying that he can cause nose bleeds at 300 yards -- is, without question, in serious need of reality adjustment (not to mention attitude adjustment). But until I see some corroborative evidence (such as a detailed timeline or affidavits from the police officers), I'm going to take this story with a grain of salt.
Great. So, because a few big corporations go whining to Capitol Hill, domain squatting gets put on the fast track. I'm not at all a fan of domain squatting, but it's been -- what? -- three years now, and how many pieces of anti-spam legislation have made it out of committee, let alone a Congressional vote?
I think it's pretty clear where our "representative's" priorities lie. "Custom Legislation, at Reasonable Prices."
And exactly who is this merger supposed to benefit?
Certainly not me. I just lost another long-distance company from which to choose. And it was one of the better ones. Now we're left with the whose ethics have been, at best, grey.
GTE/Sprint laid down a brand new fiber network, anticipating bandwidth demands of the future. Meanwhile, MCI, you may remember, is the company that invented slamming (changing your long distance provider behind your back). They also invented "Friends and Family," marketed as a way for you to get marginally cheaper LD service, but was in reality a way for them to get priceless demographic data: A fully connected graph of who knows who.
I fail to see why Sprint saw the need to sell out. Bigger is not better. Service is not going to get better. Phone rates are not going to get cheaper (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the "costs" of the merger were passed on to MCI/Sprint customers).
My cynical nature suspect this deal was done just to make a few dozen rich executives even richer. Can someone help me understand how this is a good thing for me?
His staff have a standing order to dump mail on this matter.
If true, then he has abrogated his duties as a public servant. I hope efforts are made to inform his consitituents of this fact come the next election.
A number of people here have posted that it would be cool to install the ARM port of Linux on the thing. People hoping to be able to do this should be prepared for a bitter, uphill fight.
Nintendo has been extremely hostile to open development on their platforms since day one. If you aren't a major software house, they won't even acknowledge you exist, much less allow you to sign their incredibly draconian non-disclosure and distribution agreements, which you must do before they will let you anywhere near their system specs.
And even if you manage to get that far, Nintendo can simply refuse to publish your product.
Nintendo makes their money from usurious margins on their cartridges and publishing fees. A company with this kind of track record is not about to open the machine to all comers, no matter how cool it may be. In fact, expect them to sue you if you attempt to write software on "their" platform without their "permission."
What kind of antenna is required at the subscriber's site? Is it unobtrusive, or might it violate local "eyesore" laws?
Is line-of-sight to a central repeater required?
Is 1.5Mbps guaranteed in all weather conditions?
What's the maximum range? 5 miles? 10 miles? Does greater range mean reduced bandwidth?
How well does this service scale? That is, if 10% of the local population subscribed, would local bandwidth contention be a problem?
Is this a virtual point-to-point connection, or more like a cable modem? That is, can I open my net card in promiscuous mode and sniff packets going out to the entire neighborhood?
This sounds pretty nice, and I hope it or something like it makes it out to the SF Bay area before my ludicrously expensive DSL contract is up for renewal.
I have a few obvious questions on what kind of service that $129 gets you:
Are you allowed to run a server?
Static IP or DHCP?
If static, how many IP numbers do you get?
Is there a payload cap (i.e. do you pay extra after the first 200 megs or so per day)?
How many hops away are they from a major backbone?
What's their upstream connection and bandwidth?
What are their local servers running (NT or UN*X variants)?
What's their policy on clients running spam sites or other hostile domains?
What, if any, is their content policy? (Restrictions against sexually explicit material or material "harmful to minors" (whatever the heck that means))
What is their policy toward accusations of copyright infringement or other legal wrongdoing? That is, will they yank the connection only upon presentation of a properly executed court order, or will they listen to any schmuck from the SPA?
Do they require you to use Windoze, or will they let you hook up your Mac/Linux/BeOS box?
$129/month seems like a good deal, but I really want to see The Fine Print first.
...we have to come up with a better paradigm of paying programmers and companies to produce the software we use than the one we currently have.
Absolutely correct!
I don't have The Solution. I have, however, heard a very interesting idea which I believe has a lot of promise (I regret I do not know who came up with this idea):
A programmer, or team of programmers, places a piece of software up for bid at an auction site (real or virtual). A certain sum is named by the programmer(s) for the software (say, $250K). The software is placed in escrow with the auction house, and users anywhere may bid any amount toward the software as they deem fit. The bids are also held in escrow.
When the total of received bids meets or exceeds the named price, the software is released into the public domain (or under GPL or other liberal terms), and the programmer(s) get the money. If the sum is not met after a certain time limit expires, the software is not released, and the bids are returned to tbe bidders.
Kinda like Public Television in the US.
I think it's a wonderful idea, and I would love to see it tried.
When you purchase a product, you agree to a license agreement, like it or not. It is a legal binding contract [... ]
No. It. Isn't.
Shrinkwraps are a largely untested legal fiction with absolutely no ethical foundation whatsoever.
The only court case that has ever directly tested shrinkwraps is ProCD vs. Zeidenberg. In that case, sadly, the judge held shrinkwraps to be enforceable. However, the reasoning underlying the judge's decision was, IMHO, rather flimsy, and there are still a ton of unanswered questions as to what's enforeceable and what isn't.
This is why the software and entertainment industries are trying to ram the UCITA through the state legislatures, which would formally legitimize these unethical legal instruments. It is absolutely vital to the future of the citizens and consumers of this country that this must not happen.
Do not take shrinkwrap "agreements" seriously, and challenge their appearance wherever you find them.
There is a strong suggestion (but no actual promise, mind) that those who have had their credit cards charged will receive their boards. It just may take a while.
Slashdot Mirror
One day, about two years ago, I received one spam too many, and ended up writing a self-righteous screed, which some of you may find entertaining, which I called The Anti Spam Manifesto. It is, alas, completely fictional. But don't tell the spammers that...
Schwab
Alas, no. Another Slashdot user did. However, I've been unable to find the original post; it's probably expired.
Schwab
If, as you say in your post, "DIVX was *evil*," why did you work on it? Why did you help to create something you knew no one would want, and which you yourself didn't want to have?
I'm not trying to be hostile. It's just that I learned my lesson on issues like this a long time ago, and I've made it clear to myself (and my employers) that I will not work on projects with which I personally disagree. Perhaps I'm in a better position than most (and I also don't put myself in the way of such projects), but I've never fully understood why someone would spend their precious creative energy on something they personally felt was pointless, wrong, or ethically bankrupt.
This is just me talking,
Schwab
Clearly, these people are not very clever. It seems fairly clear to me from this "horror story" that the movie theatre model of film distribution has been marginalized by advancing technology.
We observe that people are not willing to go to the theater, but are willing to buy VCDs. Now, would a clever person either:
The environment is changing. Organisms (and organizations) that do not evolve will end up as an exhibit under glass in a museum. I guarantee you the environment will not change to suit your whims. Start changing the way you think about this stuff; the ulcer you save may be your own.
Schwab
Yes, but when you're talking about counterfeiting in commercially significant quantities, the encryption scheme doesn't enter into it. All the encryption scheme accomplishes is to prevent people from turning the MPEG datastream into plaintext. But a high-volume counterfeiter doesn't duplicate at that level; they duplicate the raw bits coming off the read head.
The DVD player in your living room has no way of knowing whether the disc you're playing was legitimately stamped by the studio, or whether it's a precise bit-for-bit copy stamped in Malasia. So it's fairly easy to demonstrate the encryption scheme fails at its stated purpose.
So what's the encryption really there for?
Schwab
I've thought about this a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that the movie industry really has nothing to worry about from unauthorized copying. The facts, simply, are these:
A lot of manual intervention is required in the mass duplication of video tapes. Basically, you have a wall of VCRs which record at 2x normal speed. So it takes about 45 minutes to make a batch of 200 or so tapes. These machines are frequently attended by a human operator (who costs money). DVDs, on the other hand, are pressed like CDs in an entirely automated process. Thousands can be stamped out in an afternoon. The manufacturing costs for DVDs is less than one-fifth that of video tapes, a savings which, of course, is not passed on to the consumer. So, while their PR department whines shrilly about "piracy" (a term used more for its emotional overtones than its accuracy), the studio is raking in even more money than before.
The number of people who are going to A) spend hours downloading a 5 gigabyte file, and B) spend 5 gigabytes of hard disk space to store it (at a cost of $20/gig) is statistically insignificant. Yes, you'll probably have a college dormitory sharing movies over their 100Mbit LAN. This represents -- what? -- 0.001% of the total market? I'm surprised the studio's accounting department hasn't killed these anti-copying campaigns as an unbelievable waste of money.
The fact is that DVD writers are expensive and are likely to remain that way for the forseeable future. Beyond that? I think we can take a lesson from what happened to the music industry with the proliferation of CD writers and MP3 files: Those companies are as strong as they ever were, and there is no proof they are suffering financially (despite our fervent desires to the contrary).
What I find particularly puzzling is that the hardware companies haven't figured out that they're in the driver's seat. Toshiba et al could have easily told the movie industry, "No, you're not going to get encryption or regional lockouts. Because it doesn't matter. Our manufacturing process costs less than one-fifth of the one you're using now. Once your shareholders find out there's a process that will cut your costs and increase profits and product quality (and we'll make sure they do find out), they'll rake you over the coals until you adopt it. You will use our open, unencrypted platform, and you'll like it. The financial reality leaves you no choice."
The argument really is that simple.
Schwab
I've consistently used Slackware for the last few years, and have grown comfortable with it. It runs on both my desktop and laptop. However, one of Slackware's biggest shortcomings is the difficulty in upgrading system components. The only "sure-fire" way I've found to do this is with a complete re-install, then copy back my stuff.
Since the rest of the world is moving away from libc5 and toward glibc, I'm going to have to upgrade at some point. It's for these reasons that I've been flirting with Debian and RetHat, which appear to be a bit friendlier with their package management. Nevertheless, since I'm most familiar with Slackware, I'd prefer to upgrade what I already have.
So. Can anyone offer any hints/suggestions as to how to make this process as painless as possible? (Yes, I read the Slackware upgrade HOWTO, and it's depressing. Isn't there a better way? If moving to Debian/RedHat turns out to be the best way, then so be it...)
Schwab
EROS looks like an excellent foundation for, as an example, an electronic funds transfer system, where you absolutely do not want errant/hostile code running around in the system. However, I'm not sure about its utility on more "traditional" desktop systems.
The EROS FAQ mentions that there is no such thing as 'root'; there is no user who has total authority. This is a double-edged sword. While the absence of root makes compromising a system difficult (since there's no Obvious Target to gain access to), it also prevents a legitimate user from manipulating or killing processes that simply refuse to grant the capability.
The scenario I'm envisioning here is an EROS-based Web Terminal. An unethical vendor could supply a terminal which, among other things, transmits your bookmarks and passwords to a central database to be analyzed and resold to telemarketroids. (Or, insert your favorite Dark Scenario here.) In an EROS-based system, there would be no way for a user to Do The UNIX Thing and kill the offending process.
Perhaps it's just my Type-A personality, but I find I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a program or system that could potentially refuse to do what I want, just because some $(EXPLETIVE) programmer thought it was none of my business.
Schwab
No, he'd need at least three medium-sized planets, which will be just barely enough room to house the Complaints Department.
"Go Stick Your Head in a Pig,"
Schwab
Many months ago, I went to the trouble of submitting my Web site (the same URL as above) to all the major search engines, including Lycos. Several months later, I decided to see which engines could find me. I typed in the fairly unique keyword ewhac and waited to see what happened. All of them turned up reasonable results.
...Except Lycos. After typing in a few other phrases unique to my Web pages, I determined that Lycos somehow failed to index my site after several months. I went to their "Add Your Site" page to re-submit it, and found they have a feature to determine if your page is already indexed. I entered my URL, and Lycos replied, "Yeah, sure, we know about your site," and displayed the correct <TITLE> of the page.
I see. So Lycos will collect URLs, but not actually do anything with them. Cute.
As I was writing this message, I decided to see if anything had changed. I did some keyword searches, but my Web site still didn't turn up. So I returned to the "Add Your Site" page, and checked to see if they still knew about my site. Here's the response I received:
Nowhere on Lycos could I find a description of their index criteria. My cynical nature suspects that their criteria involve money. Who knows how many other useful or interesting pages they have deliberately failed to index?
Lycos is a bullshit scam. Avoid it. Google has always worked better for me, anyway.
Schwab
You misunderstand. If we are to take Shamrock's message as true, MTV showed an almost aggressive disinterest in their desire to actually educate them about the hacking/cracking scene. Had Shamrock et al. persisted in trying to get their story right, MTV would simply have moved on to another group of people who were willing to give them what they wanted.
In other words, MTV had already written the kind of story they wanted to broadcast, and were simply shopping for willing bodies to put in front of the camera. This practice is exceedingly common, and has a long history. CBS News did a very similar hatchet job over ten years ago on a gathering of highly respected computer luminaries, including RMS, Donald Knuth, Lee Felsenstein, John Gilmore, and others.
These days, the media calls this "journalism." We know it better as Infotainment.
Schwab
Shamrock simply asserts without corroborative evidence that, "We faked it."
If you were a lame-brained criminal and realized you had been caught on camera, isn't it possible that one of your alibis might be, "Hey, I was just foolin' ya, to make y'all look stupid."
Personally, I would like to believe Shamrock's story. Any organization that would retain someone like Jesse -- a person so amazingly annoying that he can cause nose bleeds at 300 yards -- is, without question, in serious need of reality adjustment (not to mention attitude adjustment). But until I see some corroborative evidence (such as a detailed timeline or affidavits from the police officers), I'm going to take this story with a grain of salt.
Schwab
Great. So, because a few big corporations go whining to Capitol Hill, domain squatting gets put on the fast track. I'm not at all a fan of domain squatting, but it's been -- what? -- three years now, and how many pieces of anti-spam legislation have made it out of committee, let alone a Congressional vote?
I think it's pretty clear where our "representative's" priorities lie. "Custom Legislation, at Reasonable Prices."
Schwab
<RANT>
And exactly who is this merger supposed to benefit?
Certainly not me. I just lost another long-distance company from which to choose. And it was one of the better ones. Now we're left with the whose ethics have been, at best, grey.
GTE/Sprint laid down a brand new fiber network, anticipating bandwidth demands of the future. Meanwhile, MCI, you may remember, is the company that invented slamming (changing your long distance provider behind your back). They also invented "Friends and Family," marketed as a way for you to get marginally cheaper LD service, but was in reality a way for them to get priceless demographic data: A fully connected graph of who knows who.
I fail to see why Sprint saw the need to sell out. Bigger is not better. Service is not going to get better. Phone rates are not going to get cheaper (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the "costs" of the merger were passed on to MCI/Sprint customers).
My cynical nature suspect this deal was done just to make a few dozen rich executives even richer. Can someone help me understand how this is a good thing for me?
</RANT>
Schwab
If true, then he has abrogated his duties as a public servant. I hope efforts are made to inform his consitituents of this fact come the next election.
Schwab
Does anyone have a SnailMail address for The Distinguished Gentleman from Australia? I'd like to disabuse him of a few misconceptions.
Schwab
A number of people here have posted that it would be cool to install the ARM port of Linux on the thing. People hoping to be able to do this should be prepared for a bitter, uphill fight.
Nintendo has been extremely hostile to open development on their platforms since day one. If you aren't a major software house, they won't even acknowledge you exist, much less allow you to sign their incredibly draconian non-disclosure and distribution agreements, which you must do before they will let you anywhere near their system specs.
And even if you manage to get that far, Nintendo can simply refuse to publish your product.
Nintendo makes their money from usurious margins on their cartridges and publishing fees. A company with this kind of track record is not about to open the machine to all comers, no matter how cool it may be. In fact, expect them to sue you if you attempt to write software on "their" platform without their "permission."
Not worth the headache, IMHO.
Schwab
Have a look at this. Try not to laugh too hard.
Schwab
Please read this Slashdot post by yours truly, and see if your opinion doesn't shift a bit.
Schwab
Damn, just thought of a few more:
Schwab
This sounds pretty nice, and I hope it or something like it makes it out to the SF Bay area before my ludicrously expensive DSL contract is up for renewal.
I have a few obvious questions on what kind of service that $129 gets you:
$129/month seems like a good deal, but I really want to see The Fine Print first.
Schwab
"Thanks, Rocky!" Schwab
Absolutely correct!
I don't have The Solution. I have, however, heard a very interesting idea which I believe has a lot of promise (I regret I do not know who came up with this idea):
A programmer, or team of programmers, places a piece of software up for bid at an auction site (real or virtual). A certain sum is named by the programmer(s) for the software (say, $250K). The software is placed in escrow with the auction house, and users anywhere may bid any amount toward the software as they deem fit. The bids are also held in escrow.
When the total of received bids meets or exceeds the named price, the software is released into the public domain (or under GPL or other liberal terms), and the programmer(s) get the money. If the sum is not met after a certain time limit expires, the software is not released, and the bids are returned to tbe bidders.
Kinda like Public Television in the US.
I think it's a wonderful idea, and I would love to see it tried.
Schwab
No. It. Isn't.
Shrinkwraps are a largely untested legal fiction with absolutely no ethical foundation whatsoever.
The only court case that has ever directly tested shrinkwraps is ProCD vs. Zeidenberg. In that case, sadly, the judge held shrinkwraps to be enforceable. However, the reasoning underlying the judge's decision was, IMHO, rather flimsy, and there are still a ton of unanswered questions as to what's enforeceable and what isn't.
This is why the software and entertainment industries are trying to ram the UCITA through the state legislatures, which would formally legitimize these unethical legal instruments. It is absolutely vital to the future of the citizens and consumers of this country that this must not happen.
Do not take shrinkwrap "agreements" seriously, and challenge their appearance wherever you find them.
Schwab
There is a strong suggestion (but no actual promise, mind) that those who have had their credit cards charged will receive their boards. It just may take a while.
Schwab