Kazaa turned a profit... and this isn't something to be happy about.
Kazaa is infested with all sorts of tag-along programs which are spyware and adware. Remember the famous one that stole Amazon.com affiliate program links so that Kazaa always got the credit?... yeah, that's stealing from Joe Webmaster... but Kazaa doesn't care.
That line of reasoning seems to be in the line of trying to make the ISPs the enforcer of should-be-shut-down services again.
The fact is, call it what you want, when you download RIAA-label music over any "P2P" system, you're breaking the law. It's the warez of music... those things just don't belong on a free download system of any kind.
The way to really break the RIAA model is to have people practicing the free-downloads-so-I-attract-fans-to-my-concerts model, and showing how well the Open Source and Napster Refugee communities adopt those artists, making them just as rich as they would be under the RIAA system.
The perfect P2P system would only permit copyright-approved or expired content onto the system, so that the RIAA and MPAA would have no way to criticize it or shut it down. The only problem is, with copyrights that go on forever, there just isn't much for such a system to ever do.
This isn't a new law. This isn't a bill that's on the president's desk. This isn't a bill that has passed the House. This isn't a bill that has passed the Senate. This isn't waiting in committee. This hasn't even been proposed in either branch. Hillary cannot propose it in either branch, she hasn't been elected. Hillary isn't even running for office.
This is so far away from being a law, it isn't even funny. Nobody with the power to make this a law has come forward supporting it. If Fritz Hollings picks it up, then we can be a bit concerned, yet he still needs to convnice a lot of other people this is a good idea before it goes anywhere.
Let's not get too worked up on this one. Keep it on the radar, sure... but there are a lot of other bad ideas that have gotten further in the assembly line than this one, and those are the ones that need our attention.
Most likely, but when you factor in the number of retail licenses they've sold within New York State, the fine is still going to head into a very annoying number in the millions.
Really, the violation here was per license, not per user... because nobody was ever really restricted from reviewing Network Associates products. The violation was that NA falsely claimed that you couldn't in the license... which likely fooled a lot of people into thinking they couldn't.
Re:Spam should be 100% legal
on
Spammers Busted
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth) and are regulated the same way that all other marketters are regulated. This means they can't "hide" themselves behind forged headers or other information designed to deceive the reader/recipient.
Unfortunately, those rules are simply in contradiction to SMTP. SMTP requires that the receiver provide the server to hold the message, and there is no way to authenticate the from and reply addresses.
A nice tech solution would be an interrupt message that explains to the incoming caller that the user is within a zone where cell phones work, but would not be welcomed. The caller then gets the option to allow a $1.50 charge to their phone to complete the call. Calling a doctor to an emergency is worth $1.50, calling little Jimmy to check up with him when he's out on a Friday night usually isn't.
No, a zero for commericalism here. These are discussion pieces more than anything else. None of these will ever head to market, nobody in their right mind would buy any of them.
I'd still recommend finding the best school that'll put up with you within your ability to travel. Major colleges are getting very agressive trying to get part-time students into their classes, and for a few bucks more you get the name of a much better known institution than your local community college can give you.
Being able to say you got a B.S. from a place that knows what its talking about is worth all the certs out there combined or better.
Are there any decent schools out there who have good facilities, good instructors and do more than 'teach-to-the-exams?"
Yes... they're called universities.
Seriously, vendor certifications will always say that you can run their products, but being a CCNA will only teach you Cisco products, being an MCSE will only teach you Microsoft products.
If you ever want a full understanding from people who actually know what you're talking about, you want to go to the nearest university. The bigger the better, and they all are making an effort to get "non-traditional students" (those who aren't the in typical 18-22 year old age range) into their classes.
Yeah, the idea of student loans might not be what you had in mind, and this isn't a quick-hit solution... but being able to say you graduated with a degree in IT from a respectable school is worth a whole lot more than anything a vendor can ever confer.
How does this fall under the "please don't buy our hardware dept."??? It doesn't seem that PCI-SIG even SELLS hardware.
Same technical difference that's brought up when somebody says that the RIAA doesn't sell CDs, they're just a trade group too.
The membership of the PCI-SIG is about every company on the face of the earth who has ever made a device that supports the PCI(r) standard. The group itself doesn't make hardware, but every single member does. Since this is against the interest of every member of the group, the members should have stopped the group's lawyers.
Imagine if an IBM exec called him up, and invited him into his office. The exec then thanks him for his hard work on the site, and says that the PCI-SIG is interested in interested in turning it into an official site of the organization, and is willing to pay him $25,000 to take ownership of the site, promises to give the site a good home on servers that they'll pay for. If he accepts, IBM will offer to maintain the site for the PCI-SIG, and his job responsiblities will be changed so that he'll still be the editor of the site, but now on it'd be on company time with access to IBM's PR and legal resources to help him.
Just treat people with a little respect, and they're more likely to do what you want. Give the money that you're spending on the lawyer to write the C&D to the guy who actually did all the work, and they'd have exactly what they wanted. Instead, he took the C&D at face value and ceased and desisted. Talk about wrong tool for the job...
Apparently the lawyers in this one don't read Slashdot.
We talked about this last Friday. Larry Lessig brought up the point that if a lawsuit doesn't make sense from a business point of view, then even if its a sure-shot legal winner it should not be bothered with.
Here's a perfect example in action. Wouldn't it be in the business interests the people who promote the PCI standard to want to have a site exactly like this. Shouldn't they have set this up on their own, rather than depending on the niceness of somebody outside their organization to do it?
The PCI-SIG may very well be protecting their legal rights, but wouldn't a better solution for trademark protection be to offer to allow him to license the right to use the trademark on his site for the price of $1?
The DMCA is a law, and as faithful American citizens, it's our duty to obide by it and cherish it, as all laws must be cherished.
Duty to obey it?... maybe. Duty to cherish it?... no way.
The First Amendment is very clear that everybody has the right to petition the government. We don't have to like the laws that are passed. Furthermore we have the right to ask our elected legislators to reverse their previous decisions. And if we really don't like our government the entire lawmaking system can be flushed out within six years or less, with a majority being overtaken in less than four years.
Sounds like one of the drives belonged to a business that left something like QuickBooks on their drive, and that accounts 98% of the card numbers found, with there being one or two on each of the remaining drives.
Strikeback's just slightly misplaced. It's clear attacking computers need to be stopped, but it's much easier to have DCMA-style takedown process where legal notice is served on an ISP to takedown the offender, and filing a false report opens the false reporter to legal liability.
Nah, he works in "the real world" and is upset that the "theory" guys haven't adopted this idea, which would make life oh, so easy for him.
What he forgets is that rogue machines are not going to honor "stop the attack" requests, as by definiton they are not playing nice with the rest of the world. Furthermore, how is he going to feel when it's his machines feeling a strikeback... and who or what will decide if a strikeback is fair or unfair?
This is what happens when people start pushing theories without thinking about the other people's viewpoints.
It's next to impossible to determine what defines an attack or not... and I don't want people other than me shutting down my webserver thank you very much.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were programs that could automatically determine what's a worm or virus, and then attack the process from within the machine? No need for an outside user, just have the system kill its own rogue process as soon as it starts. Oh, it does exist. It's called Anti-Virus...
Google's recent arrival on the dotcom scene proves that the barriers to entry have not increased over time.
But Google staying there, while later-comers such as AllTheWeb and Teoma are stuck at also-ran status, proves the opposite.
Google was just so good it got over the barriers. It hit at a time when AltaVista was sleeping, and Yahoo was busy creating non-search features. It beat the competition, and was able to get people to change their homepages.
Now, the problem is a newcomer has to A: Be better than Google and B: Be able to distact people from Google. Neither is an easy task.
This basically says that the RIAA and electronic companies would rather copyright not come up in congress right now, because both would rather keep the situation as-is than allow there to be any meaningful changes in either direction.
If they had, it would have read like this...
from the glass-is-half-empty dept.:
Your Rights Online: Electronics makers to lobby against user rights
That's the other half of the quid-pro-quo here. The RIAA is willing let go the idea of government mandated DRM, so long as the electronics companies promise to lobby against any pro-user expansions of the definiton of "fair use" or a guarenteed right to backups.
Basically, the RIAA would rather have things stay the way they are, then to play the game in Congress. If the RIAA tried to argue for more than they have now, there's a risk that the debate might turn around and result in pro-consumer copyright law changes, and they'd rather talk people out of trying than taking that risk.
At least it's a pure info-for-answer transaction. You give them the URL you're looking at, they give back the PageRank value for that URL... which is a pretty nifty piece of info if you ask me.
They also have the dream of privacy policies promising not to use the URLs you ask about for any other purpose, and letting you use the rest of the functionality of the toolbar if you don't want send the info it takes to use that feature.
Wrong. A one followed by 100 zeros is a "googol". That was the inspiration for the name "Google", but they intentionally misspelled the name of the number when naming the search engine.
What this goes to say is that there are an awful lot of hyperlinks that contain "yahoo" but not "www"... trans: Linking to a part of Yahoo other than the mess that it its present home page.
Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa turned a profit... and this isn't something to be happy about.
Kazaa is infested with all sorts of tag-along programs which are spyware and adware. Remember the famous one that stole Amazon.com affiliate program links so that Kazaa always got the credit?... yeah, that's stealing from Joe Webmaster... but Kazaa doesn't care.
That line of reasoning seems to be in the line of trying to make the ISPs the enforcer of should-be-shut-down services again.
The fact is, call it what you want, when you download RIAA-label music over any "P2P" system, you're breaking the law. It's the warez of music... those things just don't belong on a free download system of any kind.
The way to really break the RIAA model is to have people practicing the free-downloads-so-I-attract-fans-to-my-concerts model, and showing how well the Open Source and Napster Refugee communities adopt those artists, making them just as rich as they would be under the RIAA system.
The perfect P2P system would only permit copyright-approved or expired content onto the system, so that the RIAA and MPAA would have no way to criticize it or shut it down. The only problem is, with copyrights that go on forever, there just isn't much for such a system to ever do.
I just can't wait until when the writers want a tax on blank paper...
This isn't a new law.
This isn't a bill that's on the president's desk.
This isn't a bill that has passed the House.
This isn't a bill that has passed the Senate.
This isn't waiting in committee.
This hasn't even been proposed in either branch.
Hillary cannot propose it in either branch, she hasn't been elected.
Hillary isn't even running for office.
This is so far away from being a law, it isn't even funny. Nobody with the power to make this a law has come forward supporting it. If Fritz Hollings picks it up, then we can be a bit concerned, yet he still needs to convnice a lot of other people this is a good idea before it goes anywhere.
Let's not get too worked up on this one. Keep it on the radar, sure... but there are a lot of other bad ideas that have gotten further in the assembly line than this one, and those are the ones that need our attention.
One unlimited license = $0.50?
Most likely, but when you factor in the number of retail licenses they've sold within New York State, the fine is still going to head into a very annoying number in the millions.
Really, the violation here was per license, not per user... because nobody was ever really restricted from reviewing Network Associates products. The violation was that NA falsely claimed that you couldn't in the license... which likely fooled a lot of people into thinking they couldn't.
Provided they use only their own resources (i.e. they do not tax other people's hardware and bandwidth) and are regulated the same way that all other marketters are regulated. This means they can't "hide" themselves behind forged headers or other information designed to deceive the reader/recipient.
Unfortunately, those rules are simply in contradiction to SMTP. SMTP requires that the receiver provide the server to hold the message, and there is no way to authenticate the from and reply addresses.
A nice tech solution would be an interrupt message that explains to the incoming caller that the user is within a zone where cell phones work, but would not be welcomed. The caller then gets the option to allow a $1.50 charge to their phone to complete the call. Calling a doctor to an emergency is worth $1.50, calling little Jimmy to check up with him when he's out on a Friday night usually isn't.
No, a zero for commericalism here. These are discussion pieces more than anything else. None of these will ever head to market, nobody in their right mind would buy any of them.
I'd still recommend finding the best school that'll put up with you within your ability to travel. Major colleges are getting very agressive trying to get part-time students into their classes, and for a few bucks more you get the name of a much better known institution than your local community college can give you.
Being able to say you got a B.S. from a place that knows what its talking about is worth all the certs out there combined or better.
Are there any decent schools out there who have good facilities, good instructors and do more than 'teach-to-the-exams?"
Yes... they're called universities.
Seriously, vendor certifications will always say that you can run their products, but being a CCNA will only teach you Cisco products, being an MCSE will only teach you Microsoft products.
If you ever want a full understanding from people who actually know what you're talking about, you want to go to the nearest university. The bigger the better, and they all are making an effort to get "non-traditional students" (those who aren't the in typical 18-22 year old age range) into their classes.
Yeah, the idea of student loans might not be what you had in mind, and this isn't a quick-hit solution... but being able to say you graduated with a degree in IT from a respectable school is worth a whole lot more than anything a vendor can ever confer.
How does this fall under the "please don't buy our hardware dept."??? It doesn't seem that PCI-SIG even SELLS hardware.
Same technical difference that's brought up when somebody says that the RIAA doesn't sell CDs, they're just a trade group too.
The membership of the PCI-SIG is about every company on the face of the earth who has ever made a device that supports the PCI(r) standard. The group itself doesn't make hardware, but every single member does. Since this is against the interest of every member of the group, the members should have stopped the group's lawyers.
Right intent, very wrong presentation.
Imagine if an IBM exec called him up, and invited him into his office. The exec then thanks him for his hard work on the site, and says that the PCI-SIG is interested in interested in turning it into an official site of the organization, and is willing to pay him $25,000 to take ownership of the site, promises to give the site a good home on servers that they'll pay for. If he accepts, IBM will offer to maintain the site for the PCI-SIG, and his job responsiblities will be changed so that he'll still be the editor of the site, but now on it'd be on company time with access to IBM's PR and legal resources to help him.
Just treat people with a little respect, and they're more likely to do what you want. Give the money that you're spending on the lawyer to write the C&D to the guy who actually did all the work, and they'd have exactly what they wanted. Instead, he took the C&D at face value and ceased and desisted. Talk about wrong tool for the job...
Apparently the lawyers in this one don't read Slashdot.
We talked about this last Friday. Larry Lessig brought up the point that if a lawsuit doesn't make sense from a business point of view, then even if its a sure-shot legal winner it should not be bothered with.
Here's a perfect example in action. Wouldn't it be in the business interests the people who promote the PCI standard to want to have a site exactly like this. Shouldn't they have set this up on their own, rather than depending on the niceness of somebody outside their organization to do it?
The PCI-SIG may very well be protecting their legal rights, but wouldn't a better solution for trademark protection be to offer to allow him to license the right to use the trademark on his site for the price of $1?
The DMCA is a law, and as faithful American citizens, it's our duty to obide by it and cherish it, as all laws must be cherished.
Duty to obey it?... maybe. Duty to cherish it?... no way.
The First Amendment is very clear that everybody has the right to petition the government. We don't have to like the laws that are passed. Furthermore we have the right to ask our elected legislators to reverse their previous decisions. And if we really don't like our government the entire lawmaking system can be flushed out within six years or less, with a majority being overtaken in less than four years.
Sounds like one of the drives belonged to a business that left something like QuickBooks on their drive, and that accounts 98% of the card numbers found, with there being one or two on each of the remaining drives.
Remember part of the FCC rules for hams state that no-encryption shall be used.
Which means 802.11-over-ham is not going to be useful for personal connections, and only usable for information that's suitable to be broadcast.
Strikeback's just slightly misplaced. It's clear attacking computers need to be stopped, but it's much easier to have DCMA-style takedown process where legal notice is served on an ISP to takedown the offender, and filing a false report opens the false reporter to legal liability.
Nah, he works in "the real world" and is upset that the "theory" guys haven't adopted this idea, which would make life oh, so easy for him. What he forgets is that rogue machines are not going to honor "stop the attack" requests, as by definiton they are not playing nice with the rest of the world. Furthermore, how is he going to feel when it's his machines feeling a strikeback... and who or what will decide if a strikeback is fair or unfair? This is what happens when people start pushing theories without thinking about the other people's viewpoints.
It's next to impossible to determine what defines an attack or not... and I don't want people other than me shutting down my webserver thank you very much.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were programs that could automatically determine what's a worm or virus, and then attack the process from within the machine? No need for an outside user, just have the system kill its own rogue process as soon as it starts. Oh, it does exist. It's called Anti-Virus...
Google's recent arrival on the dotcom scene proves that the barriers to entry have not increased over time.
But Google staying there, while later-comers such as AllTheWeb and Teoma are stuck at also-ran status, proves the opposite.
Google was just so good it got over the barriers. It hit at a time when AltaVista was sleeping, and Yahoo was busy creating non-search features. It beat the competition, and was able to get people to change their homepages.
Now, the problem is a newcomer has to A: Be better than Google and B: Be able to distact people from Google. Neither is an easy task.
This basically says that the RIAA and electronic companies would rather copyright not come up in congress right now, because both would rather keep the situation as-is than allow there to be any meaningful changes in either direction.
If they had, it would have read like this... from the glass-is-half-empty dept.: Your Rights Online: Electronics makers to lobby against user rights That's the other half of the quid-pro-quo here. The RIAA is willing let go the idea of government mandated DRM, so long as the electronics companies promise to lobby against any pro-user expansions of the definiton of "fair use" or a guarenteed right to backups. Basically, the RIAA would rather have things stay the way they are, then to play the game in Congress. If the RIAA tried to argue for more than they have now, there's a risk that the debate might turn around and result in pro-consumer copyright law changes, and they'd rather talk people out of trying than taking that risk.
At least it's a pure info-for-answer transaction. You give them the URL you're looking at, they give back the PageRank value for that URL... which is a pretty nifty piece of info if you ask me.
They also have the dream of privacy policies promising not to use the URLs you ask about for any other purpose, and letting you use the rest of the functionality of the toolbar if you don't want send the info it takes to use that feature.
Wrong. A one followed by 100 zeros is a "googol". That was the inspiration for the name "Google", but they intentionally misspelled the name of the number when naming the search engine.
What this goes to say is that there are an awful lot of hyperlinks that contain "yahoo" but not "www"... trans: Linking to a part of Yahoo other than the mess that it its present home page.