I was one of the good number of people named in the DeCSS case. I was offering a mirror of DeCSS on my site, in the hopes that people would be inspired to build a Linux DVD player package around it (or, at a minimum, that they could have used the Windows binaries to rip DVDs and then play them under Linux).
They sent me an email saying that because I hadn't responded to their earlier email, they were taking me to court.
Only problem is... I grepped my entire mail spool forwards, backwards and sideways (I never delete mails to my home email box, except spam, and even then rarely; I like being able to search for anything I've received) and could not find any previous email.
I called them, emailed them, etc., trying to ask them why they are claiming that I received a previous email when I didn't. Naturally I got nowhere.
I ended up having to sign an agreement basically stating that I'll never license or sell CSS technology. Over a lie of theirs.
(Not like I would license or sell their shit, but a sufficiently slimy lawyer-- and they have plenty-- would be able to argue that selling a used DVD-ROM drive (or a used DVD!) on eBay violates the agreement I made with them...)
Actually, to be honest, I don't think they care much about profit. They care about control. They care about dominating markets. A few years ago, the XBox wasn't taken seriously; now it is. Every teenage punk thinks it's the hottest thing since sliced bread; they deride the GameCube as the "LameCube" or "KidCube", and the PS2 seems popular only among RPGers. Joe Fratboy seems to like the XBox.
In a few years, they'll dominate the video game world. Then they may or may not crank up prices, but the point is they'll have control. This'll just help further cement their control on the PeeCee side of things, gaming-wise.
Similar example: Do they make money off of IE? No. But it helps them maintain control in other areas.
(2) Global warming. It is near-universally accepted outside the US that this is happening, and that humankind is responsible. But many smart Americans doubt this.
I believe that this particular phenomenon is due to America's peculiarly religious nature. Global warming, if true, would effectively constitute a weak disproof of the Christian God's existence; surely, if He exists, He wouldn't allow His [polluting, American] followers to kill themselves like this! The underlying (but rarely verbalized) notion seems to be "God will protect us". If global warming really existed, and really did threaten America and its millions of devout Christians, it would make their case for their God significantly weaker.
The average Windows end-user in America still "hunts and pecks". Typing 30 to 40 characters without mistakes would take them several minutes.
The very idea that someone who should know better could propose something this ludicrous is astonishing.
Asking the typical Joe Sixpack Windows user to type 30 to 40 characters is like asking them to cut their own nose off. I've once had someone tell me how "painful" it was to type my email address. Which has under a dozen characters in it.
I seem to recall hearing promises like this a year or so ago. And a year or so before that. And a year or so before that. And a year or so before that...
If people wanted, en masse, to plug their PeeCees into their TeeVees, they would have bought such systems in the past. When sweeping new nationwide/worldwide computing crazes happen, they do so without half a dozen attempts by major companies to start them.
How many times did a big company have to make a grandiose public promise before Napster (the original, pre-selling-out Napster) took off? Zero. Kazaa? Zero. eBay? Zero. Google? Zero. Firefox? Zero. iPod? One, maybe.
Things that become popular ("popular" as in "beloved", not "popular" as in "everyone uses Windows because it's what everyone else uses") across the computer world do so without a decade of fruitless promises. It's all word of mouth, baybee.
Really, it's interesting that such anti-consumer laws can get passed in the first place. I consider this phenomenon to be due to an interesting historical accident (of sorts).
Copyright laws weren't intended to affect consumers at all. They were written back in the days when "copying" a work meant pressing an unlicensed copy of a record, or printing an unlicensed copy of a book. Consumers didn't own record presses or printing presses, and thus weren't affected at all. The only people affected by these laws for many many many years were companies.
It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).
However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.
Companies may or may not realize how absurd and out-of-context their exploitation of these laws are, but they are going to ride them as long as they're allowed to (n.b.: This may well be "forever"). Thus, the laws originally intended to keep shady companies from getting rich off of each others' hard work are now being used primarily to keep the consumers in line. I don't expect this trend to stop any time soon.
As I keep saying: Y'know all those sci-fi novels that predicted a future run by giant megacorps who ruthlessly control their consumers, but the consumers are largely too sheeplike to care? Well, that future is now.
Trains? BWAHAHAHAHhaah. The trains are a shadow of their former self. No, all that matters is that the airline CEOs make money. Not that the planes take off or land on time (or that they take off or land at all). Trains? No one cares about trains any more since they don't make too much money for anyone any more.
America has become a land ruled by the sole commandment "thou shalt make money for thy CEO". Anything else goes out the window. Scientific truth is just the latest victim of many.
Is Steve gonna sue Sirius now?;) (Hint: What happened to the last person who revealed Apple's short-term plans? OK, so this is more of a lack of one specific plan, but...)
I'm in a ranty mood.
I take out my frustrations by ranting.
Some other people take out their frustrations by shooting or bombing people.
The President of the United States takes out his frustrations by invading sovereign nations.
I prefer ranting.
The old Playstation game "Martian Gothic" told the tale of some early Mars bases in a near-future scenario...where said bases were created by a corporation and not NASA or the like. That sort of future is looking more and more likely.
Gotta love it. So instead of arguing that America should be dominated by lots of smaller, less evil businesses instead of a very few, very huge businesses... you say "if you don't like it, pull a Ted Kaczynski."
How about a position more nuanced than "put up or shut up"?
Modern conveniences are nice. Modern conveniences don't necessarily have to come from the teat of AOLTimeWarnerMSNBCDisneyMonsanto.
I'd be much happier to live in an America with no corporations worth more than a few million dollars.
I pre-emptively mentioned WWII, since it seems that conservatives have a major WWII fetish, and that every time I complain about the war in Iraq someone says "Would you have objected to us getting involved in WWII too???"
I habitually note patterns-- patterns of behavior, patterns of events, and so on. I see life as one big regexp. And one pattern I've noticed is that virtually any time you protest a war, sooner or later someone on the right side of the aisle will ask if you would have protested WWII.
Kim Jong Il has every reason to claim that he needs nukes for protections against the US. That reason is that GWB is certainly not known for restraining himself from "saber rattling"...
*blink* I beg your pardon. Evidently you're such a war-hawk that you feel it's self-evident why everyone should be?
Please. I believe you're suffering from testosterone poisoning if you honestly feel that war is a rational (or admirable) activity. Kindly take some Androcur; I hear it's quite nice at drastically reducing one's testosterone levels.
Slashdot Mirror
How did he respond? Or has he not responded yet? If he hasn't, is there a way to reach him? A letter-writing campaign maybe?
Read the article. This is the domain name referenced in the article: "treehugger.com".
treehugger.com. Haw. What Would Cartman Say? ;)
They're outright liars.
I was one of the good number of people named in the DeCSS case. I was offering a mirror of DeCSS on my site, in the hopes that people would be inspired to build a Linux DVD player package around it (or, at a minimum, that they could have used the Windows binaries to rip DVDs and then play them under Linux).
They sent me an email saying that because I hadn't responded to their earlier email, they were taking me to court.
Only problem is... I grepped my entire mail spool forwards, backwards and sideways (I never delete mails to my home email box, except spam, and even then rarely; I like being able to search for anything I've received) and could not find any previous email.
I called them, emailed them, etc., trying to ask them why they are claiming that I received a previous email when I didn't. Naturally I got nowhere.
I ended up having to sign an agreement basically stating that I'll never license or sell CSS technology. Over a lie of theirs.
(Not like I would license or sell their shit, but a sufficiently slimy lawyer-- and they have plenty-- would be able to argue that selling a used DVD-ROM drive (or a used DVD!) on eBay violates the agreement I made with them...)
Actually, to be honest, I don't think they care much about profit. They care about control. They care about dominating markets. A few years ago, the XBox wasn't taken seriously; now it is. Every teenage punk thinks it's the hottest thing since sliced bread; they deride the GameCube as the "LameCube" or "KidCube", and the PS2 seems popular only among RPGers. Joe Fratboy seems to like the XBox.
In a few years, they'll dominate the video game world. Then they may or may not crank up prices, but the point is they'll have control. This'll just help further cement their control on the PeeCee side of things, gaming-wise.
Similar example: Do they make money off of IE? No. But it helps them maintain control in other areas.
Shock! Horror! ;)
Let's beta test this! You go first. ;)
(2) Global warming. It is near-universally accepted outside the US that this is happening, and that humankind is responsible. But many smart Americans doubt this.
I believe that this particular phenomenon is due to America's peculiarly religious nature. Global warming, if true, would effectively constitute a weak disproof of the Christian God's existence; surely, if He exists, He wouldn't allow His [polluting, American] followers to kill themselves like this! The underlying (but rarely verbalized) notion seems to be "God will protect us". If global warming really existed, and really did threaten America and its millions of devout Christians, it would make their case for their God significantly weaker.
The average Windows end-user in America still "hunts and pecks". Typing 30 to 40 characters without mistakes would take them several minutes.
The very idea that someone who should know better could propose something this ludicrous is astonishing.
Asking the typical Joe Sixpack Windows user to type 30 to 40 characters is like asking them to cut their own nose off. I've once had someone tell me how "painful" it was to type my email address. Which has under a dozen characters in it.
Leslie Moonves, Co-President and Co-COO of Viacom (listed on the ad) is a guy. So it's "Dear Mr. Moonves", not "Dear Ms. Moonves".
And don't use "To Whom it May Concern". Their actual names are listed on the ad.
I seem to recall hearing promises like this a year or so ago. And a year or so before that. And a year or so before that. And a year or so before that...
If people wanted, en masse, to plug their PeeCees into their TeeVees, they would have bought such systems in the past. When sweeping new nationwide/worldwide computing crazes happen, they do so without half a dozen attempts by major companies to start them.
How many times did a big company have to make a grandiose public promise before Napster (the original, pre-selling-out Napster) took off? Zero. Kazaa? Zero. eBay? Zero. Google? Zero. Firefox? Zero. iPod? One, maybe.
Things that become popular ("popular" as in "beloved", not "popular" as in "everyone uses Windows because it's what everyone else uses") across the computer world do so without a decade of fruitless promises. It's all word of mouth, baybee.
Really, it's interesting that such anti-consumer laws can get passed in the first place. I consider this phenomenon to be due to an interesting historical accident (of sorts).
Copyright laws weren't intended to affect consumers at all. They were written back in the days when "copying" a work meant pressing an unlicensed copy of a record, or printing an unlicensed copy of a book. Consumers didn't own record presses or printing presses, and thus weren't affected at all. The only people affected by these laws for many many many years were companies.
It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).
However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.
Companies may or may not realize how absurd and out-of-context their exploitation of these laws are, but they are going to ride them as long as they're allowed to (n.b.: This may well be "forever"). Thus, the laws originally intended to keep shady companies from getting rich off of each others' hard work are now being used primarily to keep the consumers in line. I don't expect this trend to stop any time soon.
As I keep saying: Y'know all those sci-fi novels that predicted a future run by giant megacorps who ruthlessly control their consumers, but the consumers are largely too sheeplike to care? Well, that future is now.
Oh, shit. So robots are gonna look like Sentinels?
Whoa.
Trains? BWAHAHAHAHhaah. The trains are a shadow of their former self. No, all that matters is that the airline CEOs make money. Not that the planes take off or land on time (or that they take off or land at all). Trains? No one cares about trains any more since they don't make too much money for anyone any more.
America has become a land ruled by the sole commandment "thou shalt make money for thy CEO". Anything else goes out the window. Scientific truth is just the latest victim of many.
Is Steve gonna sue Sirius now? ;) (Hint: What happened to the last person who revealed Apple's short-term plans? OK, so this is more of a lack of one specific plan, but...)
The phrase is "for all intents and purposes".
I'm in a ranty mood.
I take out my frustrations by ranting.
Some other people take out their frustrations by shooting or bombing people.
The President of the United States takes out his frustrations by invading sovereign nations.
I prefer ranting.
The old Playstation game "Martian Gothic" told the tale of some early Mars bases in a near-future scenario...where said bases were created by a corporation and not NASA or the like. That sort of future is looking more and more likely.
Yes, pre-emptive conversation. Not pre-emptive "blowing people to smithereens with bombs".
American corporations are evil. Real evil. Not just "70 in the 65 zone" evil.
Gotta love it. So instead of arguing that America should be dominated by lots of smaller, less evil businesses instead of a very few, very huge businesses... you say "if you don't like it, pull a Ted Kaczynski."
How about a position more nuanced than "put up or shut up"?
Modern conveniences are nice. Modern conveniences don't necessarily have to come from the teat of AOLTimeWarnerMSNBCDisneyMonsanto.
I'd be much happier to live in an America with no corporations worth more than a few million dollars.
I pre-emptively mentioned WWII, since it seems that conservatives have a major WWII fetish, and that every time I complain about the war in Iraq someone says "Would you have objected to us getting involved in WWII too???"
I habitually note patterns-- patterns of behavior, patterns of events, and so on. I see life as one big regexp. And one pattern I've noticed is that virtually any time you protest a war, sooner or later someone on the right side of the aisle will ask if you would have protested WWII.
I'm pretty glad there was gravity before it started helping us understand our world.
No saber rattling? I beg your pardon?
Kim Jong Il has every reason to claim that he needs nukes for protections against the US. That reason is that GWB is certainly not known for restraining himself from "saber rattling"...
*blink* I beg your pardon. Evidently you're such a war-hawk that you feel it's self-evident why everyone should be?
Please. I believe you're suffering from testosterone poisoning if you honestly feel that war is a rational (or admirable) activity. Kindly take some Androcur; I hear it's quite nice at drastically reducing one's testosterone levels.