"99% of the whole point of these lawsuits is to get filesharing fearmongering into the news where it can "deter" and influence politicians."
Well, now that you've commented on it, you're complicit in that too...;)
Yes, it is absolutely correct that the point of the lawsuits is to get publicity for this issue. And it is correct that Slashdot is participating in that process.
However it is also worth differentiating between "filesharing" and "unauthorized filesharing."
These suits (as opposed to the Napster, Grokster, etc.) are about unauthorized filesharing, and not the technology itself.
Indeed, those that constantly act as apologists for unauthorized filesharing are just as guilty as *IAA for endangering an emerging technology.
For those unfamiliar with WebJay, it's worth pointing out that it's not an "app" (it's a Web site), and it's not "p2p" (at least not in the Napster, Kazaa sense of the term).
Instead, it lets you build and publish playlists that point to content served by other boxes -- it doesn't "share" anything as much as it shares pointers to those things (a big difference from conventional "p2p" apps).
Also, I believe Lucas' intent is that it only share authorized work (another big difference from conventional "p2p").
Why post the text instead of having the/. crowd flood their server to see what they've put up there?
Because sending loads of traffic to a site that is actively trying to get a trojan onto unsuspecting boxes seems like a pretty bad idea.
Apart from those that might click through without bothering to RTFA, and mistakenly think that it's a legit patch, there are also all those browser exploits (such as the Microsoft jpeg exploit) that could also be waiting on the site for unpatched systems.
I hope it's ok to mention my own software, Andromeda.
It's been out for about 4-5 years, and has received good reviews.
I've coded ASP and PHP versions, and it works on Windows, Unix, and Mac OS X boxes.
Basically, you just drag in the one script file, and it turns your folders of MP3s into a complete streaming site -- whenever you add new files, the site is always automatically up-to-date.
You can use it over your LAN, or (bandwidth permitting) over the Internet.
"The only way this can be bad for fileswapping is if the Court hears the case and reverses the Betamax decision."
Well, not exactly.
Most all the rulings so far have been bad for fileswapping -- ie, they have all agreed that unauthorized copying is illegal -- this ruling just protects the software itself, and keeps the burden shifted over to fileswappers.
The easiest way to see why the EFF's voluntary collective license won't work comes from Fred von Lohmann himself -- for the VCL to work, almost *every* rightsholder would have to voluntarily license, and almost *every* downloader would have to voluntarily pay.
Truthfully, now, isn't that a bit silly?
Next, you have to think about how this system would actually track what people download, in order to divide up any money collected. Do you really want to ask for even more monitoring software added to your ISP on behalf of the govenernment / entertainment industry? (I don't)
They claim that it would render all transfers anonymous, but even if it did (yeah, right) then there would be no way to identify cheats like bots that artificalially increase someone's popularity.
I could go on, but I'll stop there -- the EFF VCL isn't the answer.
It is interesting that the Slashdot headline focuses on "that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless" and SCO's involvement, but doesn't seem to question whether code was taken.
"I call b.s. The kind of monitoring that's going on here is no different than a hosting provider that monitors how much bandwidth a customer is using, except that some packets (song1.mp3) are counted in one group and others (song2.mp3) are counted in another group."
No, it's not just about aggregate bandwidth consumption -- it's about tracking what files take up that bandwidth.
It's not cool with me if ISPs are montoring my network usage to know what I'm doing, and it still baffles me that the EFF is actually trying to get ISPs to do it on behalf of the govenrment/entertainment industry when it comes to file sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now that you've commented on it, you're complicit in that too... ;)
Yes, it is absolutely correct that the point of the lawsuits is to get publicity for this issue. And it is correct that Slashdot is participating in that process.
However it is also worth differentiating between "filesharing" and "unauthorized filesharing."
These suits (as opposed to the Napster, Grokster, etc.) are about unauthorized filesharing, and not the technology itself.
Indeed, those that constantly act as apologists for unauthorized filesharing are just as guilty as *IAA for endangering an emerging technology.
I watched all 4 US presidential debates (1 vice presidential) live on CSPAN.org. It worked great.
Instead, it lets you build and publish playlists that point to content served by other boxes -- it doesn't "share" anything as much as it shares pointers to those things (a big difference from conventional "p2p" apps).
Also, I believe Lucas' intent is that it only share authorized work (another big difference from conventional "p2p").
And, it scares me miserably that I would even think about that as a tradeoff.
oops, no, they got Poland too.
Google cache and Archive.org
But to be in favor of rightsholders making those decisions also means accepting them when they decide *not* to share.
If we only care when a rightsholder decides to share, and not if they choose otherwise, then we really don't care about them making that decision.
Because sending loads of traffic to a site that is actively trying to get a trojan onto unsuspecting boxes seems like a pretty bad idea.
Apart from those that might click through without bothering to RTFA, and mistakenly think that it's a legit patch, there are also all those browser exploits (such as the Microsoft jpeg exploit) that could also be waiting on the site for unpatched systems.
Do they even know that they're bad guys, or do they have themselves fooled?
I'd say that, generally, old-school hackers are more respectful of intellectual property than new-school hackers. (yes, that was a generality)
For example, most grey-beards that I know don't really favor the idea of p2p being used to share files against the wishes of the author.
It's been out for about 4-5 years, and has received good reviews.
I've coded ASP and PHP versions, and it works on Windows, Unix, and Mac OS X boxes.
Basically, you just drag in the one script file, and it turns your folders of MP3s into a complete streaming site -- whenever you add new files, the site is always automatically up-to-date.
You can use it over your LAN, or (bandwidth permitting) over the Internet.
Well, not exactly.
Most all the rulings so far have been bad for fileswapping -- ie, they have all agreed that unauthorized copying is illegal -- this ruling just protects the software itself, and keeps the burden shifted over to fileswappers.
Because if they do, then I'd think that you could just remote control them, and skip the whole soldering bit.
(fwiw, I keep an old PC wired to my stereo, and I use Remote Desktop to control it via my wi-fi laptop)
And what's so funny about it is that O'Reilly *still* does not sell unbundled, non-DRM'ed, digital downloads.
1) Roughly what percent of your music collection is unauthorized files from P2P like Kazaa, FTP, etc.?
2) Roughly what percent of your music collection comes from sources like iTunes Music Store, eMusic, etc?
3) Roughly what percent of your music collection comes from shareable sources like Creative Commons-licensed music?
4) Roughly what percent of your music collection comes from rips of your own CDs?
5) Roughly what percent of your music collection comes from rips of friends' CDs?
(and what am I missing?)
Truthfully, now, isn't that a bit silly?
Next, you have to think about how this system would actually track what people download, in order to divide up any money collected. Do you really want to ask for even more monitoring software added to your ISP on behalf of the govenernment / entertainment industry? (I don't)
They claim that it would render all transfers anonymous, but even if it did (yeah, right) then there would be no way to identify cheats like bots that artificalially increase someone's popularity.
I could go on, but I'll stop there -- the EFF VCL isn't the answer.
IMHO, my suggestion is DRUMS.
I hereby want it to be known: Apache stole my code!
(sorry that I didn't give the article a thorough read)
It is interesting that the Slashdot headline focuses on "that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless" and SCO's involvement, but doesn't seem to question whether code was taken.
Well, was it?
I suspect that the contents of any given P2P app's EULA will have bearing on how "knowingly" people are when they use it to share.
No, it's not just about aggregate bandwidth consumption -- it's about tracking what files take up that bandwidth.
It's not cool with me if ISPs are montoring my network usage to know what I'm doing, and it still baffles me that the EFF is actually trying to get ISPs to do it on behalf of the govenrment/entertainment industry when it comes to file sharing.
Interestingly enough, the EFF *wants* the government/music industry to tap how we use the internet when it comes to thier file sharing solution.
Sure -- that is if we actually called it GNU-Linux as Stallman wishes we did.
But we don't, and we never will. Perhaps history crulely gave more fame to Linus than to Stallman, but that's what happened.
Otherwise, it would be prety easy to aruge that Tim Berners-Lee is more important than Linus.
Pretty much any metric Gates wins: economicy, population of users, etc.
Which is not to say that Linus or Jobs or me or you might one day take the baton...
The people of China would really understand what their government is doing"
What, the people of China would only understand that their government is censoring the Internet if they took Google offline?
By your logic, they could get away with more censorship if China left Google intact.