Blocking P2P pure and simple is saying that your computer can connect to some computers (web sites) on the Internet to exchange data, but can't connect to other computers (private P2P users) to exchange data.
Net Neutrality is obviously already dead as long as this is true.
Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along. The Intel mantra was, "You'll get your faster chips when we are ready to give them to you." Apple likes to time system upgrades to when Steve Jobs can introduce them at large, regularly scheduled, Apple gatherings. But improvements in the market march one regardless of the Apple timetable. How long did it take to get the excellent Nvidia 8800GT in your Apple system? How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Will Apple ever sell a BluRay writer even though they were an early member of the BluRay camp? You get the idea.
So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit?
And then just happened to get put into the shared directory of a P2P client.
We're not discussing if the file was made available for sharing, but rather how it got onto the computer in the first place. It might have been ripped by the computer owner and placed for sharing.
Or, since P2P clients automatically search out music files to share, it could have been on the computer before Limewire was loaded, and then Limewire shared it automatically. That wouldn't be a downloaded file.
Is it reasonable to assume that if a search for a particular song returns hits that it has probably been downloaded?
No, Mr. Troll! The song that a search returns could have gotten on that computer by many other methods (ripped from CD, loaded from a memory stick, downloaded from an authorized on-line music store, copied from a previous hard drive, placed there by a trojan) than being illegally downloaded.
It is being downloaded by RIAA's unlicensed PI firm. Does that count?
No, that was an "authorized" copy. Authorized by the copyright holders themselves as part of the investigation. The work has not been infringed by authorized copies.
And I think you already knew this since you know that MediaSentry is unlicensed in every state.
Sounds like how Microsoft Genuine Advantage is presented as good thing for all Windows users.
The only way this will be any good is if any, or all, of the following are true:
1: You can opt out.
2: You ISP has gone to an ad-supported model that results in a drastic reduction of your monthly fees.
3: They are providing you with extra bandwidth free in order to carry the extra traffic they're generating to you (and not counting it against your usage caps).
Otherwise give them hell until they back off!
One is left to wonder how long before they start actually replacing ads on other sites with their own ads. After all, gangsters like this hate competition. Making you pay to get their ads, however, really sux!
...according to RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth. She also acknowledged that the RIAA can tell only when a song is being offered for users to illegally download; investigators have no way of knowing when someone else is actually downloading the song.
This is why the RIAA has no legal case, and why they must resort to bluffs, threats, extortion, smoke, mirrors, and press releases.
The song file has to be downloaded by another unauthorized person (RIAA investigators don't count) for it to be infringement. The RIAA itself admits here that they have no way of knowing if anybody else has ever downloaded this song. To properly win in court they have to convince judges and/or juries that despite this complete lack of proof that they were infringed anyway.
This declaration now that they just use Limewire (and other P2P programs it would seem given the lawsuits filed) with a few simple scripts is greatly at odds with their court declarations that their proprietary methods are the result of "tens of thousands of man-hours of development" and constitute trade secrets.
So which is it?
And do Slashdot readers know what the legal term "estopple" means?
But the effort has met with political opposition after a state senator complained that ankle cuffs used in an earlier version were reminiscent of slave chains.
That is a complete load of crap. The scary part is that this idiot is actually a state senator.
And now you know why the USA will have race problems forever. It's because people exactly like this state senator will keep bringing up the issue at every (inappropriate) possible moment.
If you've been in jail 2 times already and then steal a loaf of bread... "You're Out". By which they mean out of society for good.
Actually it means you're so stupid that after two trips to jail already you still can't learn how to be an acceptable member of society. Removing you for a long time after that is much to society's benefit.
I'm sure that the People's Republic of Canada won't dare apply this policy against any "protected" group. That would violate both Political Correctness and Mulitculturism, as well as make them look meaner than that bad old USA on their southern border.
Microsoft is only insisting that screen dimensions be limited, that the hard-drive be restricted to 80GB, and that the screens may not be touch-screens. TFA does not mention any restrictions on RAM or processor speed.
Microsoft could have easily enforced this limitation in their software. Refuse to run at a resolution over 800x600, or recognize any space on a hard drive in excess of 80GB. They didn't have to try and lock the hardware down.
Moore's Law will kill them over this. A year from now 160GB drives will cost what 80GB cost today, and if this manufacturer isn't producing larger, higher resolution screen laptops at the same price, someone else will be doing it and eating their lunch.
Microsoft can't stall progress, as much as they might wish to try.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's information superhighway robbery.
Net Neutrality is obviously already dead as long as this is true.
Yawn.
They're all thieves, and I hope they eat each other to death.
I gather that this number makes some sense in metric.
In addition to the EULA, they almost certainly violated at least one provision of the DMCA along the way as well.
And if MS listed to this demand, why are they so deaf to keeping XP available through at least the next Windows upgrade?
I think about the time The Cube came out.
Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along. The Intel mantra was, "You'll get your faster chips when we are ready to give them to you." Apple likes to time system upgrades to when Steve Jobs can introduce them at large, regularly scheduled, Apple gatherings. But improvements in the market march one regardless of the Apple timetable. How long did it take to get the excellent Nvidia 8800GT in your Apple system? How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Will Apple ever sell a BluRay writer even though they were an early member of the BluRay camp? You get the idea.
So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit?
And why does Photoshop even care if the Mac is genuine?
Well, someone has to say it. Spammers serve no social good, and it's a pretty bad species that preys on its own.
We're not discussing if the file was made available for sharing, but rather how it got onto the computer in the first place. It might have been ripped by the computer owner and placed for sharing.
Or, since P2P clients automatically search out music files to share, it could have been on the computer before Limewire was loaded, and then Limewire shared it automatically. That wouldn't be a downloaded file.
And you don't own that bridge.
No, Mr. Troll! The song that a search returns could have gotten on that computer by many other methods (ripped from CD, loaded from a memory stick, downloaded from an authorized on-line music store, copied from a previous hard drive, placed there by a trojan) than being illegally downloaded.
No, that was an "authorized" copy. Authorized by the copyright holders themselves as part of the investigation. The work has not been infringed by authorized copies.
And I think you already knew this since you know that MediaSentry is unlicensed in every state.
The only way this will be any good is if any, or all, of the following are true:
1: You can opt out.
2: You ISP has gone to an ad-supported model that results in a drastic reduction of your monthly fees.
3: They are providing you with extra bandwidth free in order to carry the extra traffic they're generating to you (and not counting it against your usage caps).
Otherwise give them hell until they back off!
One is left to wonder how long before they start actually replacing ads on other sites with their own ads. After all, gangsters like this hate competition. Making you pay to get their ads, however, really sux!
This is why the RIAA has no legal case, and why they must resort to bluffs, threats, extortion, smoke, mirrors, and press releases.
The song file has to be downloaded by another unauthorized person (RIAA investigators don't count) for it to be infringement. The RIAA itself admits here that they have no way of knowing if anybody else has ever downloaded this song. To properly win in court they have to convince judges and/or juries that despite this complete lack of proof that they were infringed anyway.
It's all the Big Lie on their part.
So which is it?
And do Slashdot readers know what the legal term "estopple" means?
That is a complete load of crap. The scary part is that this idiot is actually a state senator.
And now you know why the USA will have race problems forever. It's because people exactly like this state senator will keep bringing up the issue at every (inappropriate) possible moment.
Actually it means you're so stupid that after two trips to jail already you still can't learn how to be an acceptable member of society. Removing you for a long time after that is much to society's benefit.
I'm sure that the People's Republic of Canada won't dare apply this policy against any "protected" group. That would violate both Political Correctness and Mulitculturism, as well as make them look meaner than that bad old USA on their southern border.
Can an Nvidia lawsuit be far behind?
Wrong! If you RTFA, at the bottom is says RAM to be limited to 1GB, and processors to be limited to single core at 1GHz.
Microsoft could have easily enforced this limitation in their software. Refuse to run at a resolution over 800x600, or recognize any space on a hard drive in excess of 80GB. They didn't have to try and lock the hardware down.
Moore's Law will kill them over this. A year from now 160GB drives will cost what 80GB cost today, and if this manufacturer isn't producing larger, higher resolution screen laptops at the same price, someone else will be doing it and eating their lunch.
Microsoft can't stall progress, as much as they might wish to try.
And then IBM tried to protect the IBM PC market from lower-price competition with the crippled PC-Jr.