I have a feeling that in 10 to 20 years Atlantis will be just as real as Troy. People searched for that imaginary city for years too. Many mythical cities have turned into fact. I wonder if that would get people interested in archeology for a day or two. Maybe they'll do a Fox special on it.:)
I'm not jumping around; I'm merely using the VCR as an example of Jack Valenti/MPAA being wrong about technology.
Here's part of an article from the American Spectator: "YES, VALENTI HAS MADE himself a laughingstock to those who pay attention to history -- and his attempts to repeat it. He was the figure who predicted in the early '80s that the VCR would kill the movie industry, rather than providing it with new and huge sources of revenue. Videocassettes and DVD sales now account for about 40 percent of movie grosses.
Despite this sub-Nostradamus performance, he likes to think of himself as always forward-looking. He told Boxoffice magazine in 1997 something that his successor, whoever he might be, should remember, even as Valenti himself seemed to forget it: "People thought movies would be obliterated by cable, but last year more people went to movies than in the past 40 years. That's with surfing the Web, satellite, cable, television -- people are still going to movies in greater numbers.? People don't want to be chained to an electronic box, they want to have a social experience. They still say, 'Let's go to a movie and get a pizza after.'"
This, please note, was 15 years after Valenti memorably quipped to a congressional committee that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone." And now, movies are threatened by what Valenti assures us is the even worse threat of digital piracy. He hasn't made murderous analogies this time, but if the VCR was the Boston Strangler, perhaps DVDs and the possibility of digital transmission are Pol Pot?"(The American Spectator)
I can't find any information supporting your claim that the movie industry lost money because of VCR's. What was the change of business model you're referring to? Maybe people didn't rent movies as much when the VCR first came out, but that's because they were still new. Show me some evidence that movie sales slumped because of the VCR. I remember the 80's, but I don't remember this time period you seem to remember when we bootlegged movies instead of going to the theatre.
"Piracy right now loses the movie industry money. Perhaps one day they'll find a way to make money off of piracy that is above and beyond the money the lose from it, but right now they lose money."
I don't see the facts any more than I did for the VCR in the 1980's. Look at this from CNN last February: "Last year was the first year since 1991 that movie studios saw less U.S. box office revenue than the year before, as revenue slipped to $9.28 billion from $9.32 billion a year earlier." (CNN Money
Notice that 1991 was a bad year too? Could slumping sales have something to do with the economy in general? If I were looking at this, I was assume that it was more logical to conclude that dropping sales in 2002-2003 and back in 1991 were due to the recovering economies. Later on in the article, they're talking about how things are improving. They expect to be doing well this year or next. It sounds like that will go right along with the economy, not by stopping p2p networks. Based on the earlier "laughing college students", I don't think that p2p is in a downturn right now. I'm not arguing that piracy helps the movie industry, I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt it. P2p networks, on the other hand, are what the MPAA is actually going after to fight piracy. I'd like to see the situation resolved in court. The VCR was found legal because there were more noninfringing uses for it. I agree that there's a lot of crap on them now, but I also find it useful for legal uses. How many movie trailers, articles, and mirrored pages have you seen displayed right here after a story's link has been slashdotted? I bet Foxnews, CNN, BBC, et
This all started with you saying that if the MPAA was fighting against it, it must me losing them money. I gave you an example (the VCR) were they were wrong. VCR's != lost revenue (actually quite the opposite). Even though the above statement about VCR's are true, they still fought against it. How can this be? Your contention was the MPAA only would fight something that would lose them money. Both statements cannot be true, and you can look up the VCR example on google.
My point, which is being diluted over the course of the topic changing, is that the MPAA has been shortsighted and dead wrong before about new technology. I could even see a future where the MPAA uses customers' bandwidth to deliver, very cheaply, video-on-demand.....via p2p. There is a difference between p2p and piracy. The MPAA isn't making that distinction.
I'd like to see a dorm room case where the roommates are using a wireless gateway for laptops. I suppose whoever's name is on the account would be responsible for how it was used. The crappy thing about these lawsuits is that most people can't afford to go up against them in court. I wish some group like EFF would spring to defend one good case so we can get an idea how it would actually go in court. Even for the poor guy with the wireless hub, in the above example, would be settling instead of fighting the RIAA. There has to be cases pending against people that aren't legitimate. No, I am not volunteering.
I've no doubt that piracy has "lost some money", but where are the actual numbers to back up the claim. If you take the previous example with the movie industry this would become clearer. VCR's were originally the bane of Hollywood. The MPAA fought against them tooth and nail because they were worried about revenue. Well, in hindsight, they were completely wrong. They routinely make more money on rentals and movies sales (tapes/DVDs) than they do in the box office. This is a great example of how shortsighted the MPAA can be. They want to keep the status quo and are afraid of new technology. I'm not trying to claim they're a bunch of luddites, but when new tech is introduced, they risk losing their control over the industry. Your argument lacks logic because you fail to accept that the MPAA could act in a way that is illogical. The VCR example proves that they will fight just to keep the 'status quo'. Anyway, my point was the college students weren't laughing at the poor working Joes, but at the MPAA's weak argument. Apparently, you fall to the other side.
"It's ironic that a theater full of college students would laugh at someone defending their livelihood."
This statement is only valid for the people that buy into the RIAA/MPAA's rhetoric that every download = a lost sale. Have the number of movies in Hollywood decreased over the last few years? These people (assuming their not just actors) are paid a wage to do a job. Unless the movie industry collapses or declines as a result of downloads (I'd say if it declines it's due to crappy movies), these peoples livelihoods are not being threatened by downloaders. I think the students, who by the way paid to see a movie, were laughing at the ridiculousness of the claim. I don't think they were being cruel to the poor workers in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year.
There's an article from a month or two ago, on Slashdot, talking about the spinoff series for SG-1. I'm hoping they keep the quality of the original with the new show.
One of the nice things about GNU/Linux, is that anybody can innovate with a new project. If a new file browser is innovative and well received than the idea could take off. Unfortunately, most end users, (at least non-technical office) have no idea how the file structure exists. I've known plenty of people that can't find something unless it's on their desktop. Yes, this is the same group that keeps opening up attachments from unknown emails. If we're talking about getting GNU/Linux on the desktop, more "user-friendly" is always better. The OSS community has an opportunity to really push ahead with new interfaces and applications, but the usability needs to improve first. One of the greatest strengths and weaknesses with GNU/Linux is the sheer number of choices. Even to an experienced end-user, the number of programs on a basic distribution can be overwhelming. Depending on the flavor, installing applications can be very daunting. I started playing around with distributions in early 1996, and in 8 years, the community has made great progress in the installation and usability of the platform. The more users we get, the more drivers we'll get from vendors. It's very frustrating that ATI hasn't been more helpful to the community, but the market share is so low that they don't bother too much. All and all, if the GNU/Linux community continues to improve the distributions for the desktop, it will only help. I'm not sure we want to end up with a free Windows clone, but Windows, OSX, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.... all have features and advantages that could be used for inspiration.
I agree with most of what you say. My previous post about innovation was in response to "defining the game" by innovating. I just think a large company like Microsoft could swoop in and (control/screw up) the standards. That's not to say that I think the OSS community should stop coming up with new ideas at all.
"You propose that we can define the game, that we can lead, that Microsoft is perfectly willing, if necessary, to clone the efforts of the F/OSS community"
I'm not sure I agree here. Even if the OSS community develops the next "killer app", Microsoft can throw enough money and development to gain more market share. Take the word processor. Microsoft did not invent the word processor. After years of them throwing money at it, where is the market now? If they don't "define the game", why do people advertise alternatives as being compatible with Microsoft Office? They may not have had the idea, but through time, money and market share they've become the de facto standard. As long as Microsoft controls 90%+ of the market share in desktop computing, they can redefine most "games." Now, I'm not arguing that GNU/Linux needs to compete on market share with Microsoft to be useful, but we need more users to really be successful in the desktop. Like it or not, infusing money into GNU/Linux is what will improve it the most on the desktop. I could go on and on about the pros and cons of both OS's, but most readers already know them. Even without Microsoft's head start in market share, Windows has some major advantages to the beginning/inexperienced user (and believe me, there are a lot of them in business). Emulating some things are necessary if you want to see GNU/Linux increase on the desktop. After all, all of the OS's windows managers had bump from Xerox.
/I'm not saying that market share is the driving force, or even necessary for GNU/Linux overall.
I think if you know what you are looking for, Ebay can be a good source....but, remember that those bulbs can cost a few hundred to replace. Homebrew could give you decent results. I'm not sure if you set up a nice room you'd want a homebrew in the theatre room. Computer projectors are getting cheaper ($1500.00 range these days) and might be a good solution, especially if you are thinking about a HTPC. If you are even close to the $3,000.00 mark, I'd start looking into some plasma or LCD displays. With flat panel displays getting cheaper, the prospect of a projection screen becomes less and less desireable to me. To be honest, if I were looking at over $1,000, I'd rather get a HDTV. I think most a/v geeks would be disappointed with the homebrew approach to projectors. If you like DIY projects though, it could be fun.
I can't stand the idea of Enterprise continuing...they need a new idea, new writers and no more Braga/Berman. I don't normally read the books, but a friend got me to read the "Section 31" series and it would be great. I think a Section 31 series in the period after Voyager would keep fans happy. The TOS actors are too old for a prequel and I don't see them recasting the roles. Deep Space Nine's finale left very little to follow up on. Voyager got home. I'm thinking this would be an Enterprise project for sure.
"This is something that has bothered me for quite sometime. If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement. The property is there, and there is NO money changing hands. Perhaps I just need a swift kick to understand."
Copyright infringement happens when a person copies someone else's copyrighted items without permission. The argument, is that the "sharer's" computer will make a copy of the file that it is in the process of sharing. A lot of people are getting "fair use" and copyright infringement mixed up. You don't have to profit in order to commit it and owning a copy of the media in question has no bearing on the activity. You only have very limited copying rights to media under "fair use" and the above example doesn't fall into that category. Making "backups" for media you own, by downloading from someone else, is not legal under copyright laws. The copyright infringement happens because nobody, other than the holder of the copyright, has the authority to distribute and copy copy-protected media.
"1. If I'm downloading copies of song which I already own on CD, then I'm not infringing, am I? Maybe I'm just too lazy to rip my own disks. I can think of other reasons why I might do that."
I don't know what your legal liability is, but the person you are "sharing" from is clearly in violation of copyright infringement. They are providing/making illegal copies of material that they don't own the copyright to. That is where the "copyright infringement" is going on. Under "Fair Use" you can make copies for personal use, but you can't distribute copies to others. That's kind of the whole point behind copyright. Think about it this way: Say you just bought the latest and greatest Britney Spears album and copied it at home. You make 500 copies to give to people for backups. Say you set up a stand on a steet and give out those discs. Do you think you are not breaking any laws? How long do you think it would take before you were wearing cuffs?
The RIAA isn't going after people for having copies of mp3's. Whether you own a legal copy of the song is not important. The RIAA is looking for people sharing the songs, and if the mp3 is copyrighted, it is infringement. "Fair Use" does not include downloading or sharing "backup copies" of songs that you once owned. They don't care if you own it or not. While the DMCA gives some shelter to the ISP or school, they still have to follow up on complaints to be compliant. Thats why people are getting letters about sharing movies online. For repeated offenses, the ISP in question is under legal obligation to shut you off. Your defense is to dispute the complaint, but be prepared to hire a lawyer and only if you are innocent. This seems like a way to help the school ISP's save time by blocking as much traffic on p2p as they can. I have a feeling they are really caving into pressure from the *AA's. There's tons of legitimate uses for p2p, but we need to get it out of our heads that it's legal to download/share copyrighted material for "backup" purposes...that is clearly copyright infringement./listening to my que of 4500 "legally obtained" mp3's right now;)
Hey mods, that "first post" was supposed to be a joke. "I don't need no stinking broadband" and my "First Post" comment was a good 150 comments into the thread. Maybe it wasn't that funny, but being modded down like it was offtopic is a little harsh./oh well
Based on the repair costs I've seen people pay for both computers and cars, I'd guess a lot of consumers don't have that basic understanding. I hate to argue this for Microsoft, but I think that if they can improve their "firewall" to the feature set of ZoneAlarm, you could reduce the amount of spyware on people's computers. They would have a reason to do this to. The type of consumer that doesn't regularly run a firewall/antyspyware tools, won't know what is causing the massive bottlenecks on their PC's. This only give the Windows OS a bad name. I'd be all for some kind of default toolset that would provide a basic firewall and spyware removal tool for the "ignorant." I know for me, it would greatly reduce the hours I sit at friends' and family's computers removing the crap.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a feeling that in 10 to 20 years Atlantis will be just as real as Troy. People searched for that imaginary city for years too. Many mythical cities have turned into fact. I wonder if that would get people interested in archeology for a day or two. Maybe they'll do a Fox special on it. :)
"You're jumping around in your timeline."
I'm not jumping around; I'm merely using the VCR as an example of Jack Valenti/MPAA being wrong about technology.
Here's part of an article from the American Spectator: "YES, VALENTI HAS MADE himself a laughingstock to those who pay attention to history -- and his attempts to repeat it. He was the figure who predicted in the early '80s that the VCR would kill the movie industry, rather than providing it with new and huge sources of revenue. Videocassettes and DVD sales now account for about 40 percent of movie grosses.
Despite this sub-Nostradamus performance, he likes to think of himself as always forward-looking. He told Boxoffice magazine in 1997 something that his successor, whoever he might be, should remember, even as Valenti himself seemed to forget it: "People thought movies would be obliterated by cable, but last year more people went to movies than in the past 40 years. That's with surfing the Web, satellite, cable, television -- people are still going to movies in greater numbers.? People don't want to be chained to an electronic box, they want to have a social experience. They still say, 'Let's go to a movie and get a pizza after.'"
This, please note, was 15 years after Valenti memorably quipped to a congressional committee that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone." And now, movies are threatened by what Valenti assures us is the even worse threat of digital piracy. He hasn't made murderous analogies this time, but if the VCR was the Boston Strangler, perhaps DVDs and the possibility of digital transmission are Pol Pot?"(The American Spectator)
I can't find any information supporting your claim that the movie industry lost money because of VCR's. What was the change of business model you're referring to? Maybe people didn't rent movies as much when the VCR first came out, but that's because they were still new. Show me some evidence that movie sales slumped because of the VCR. I remember the 80's, but I don't remember this time period you seem to remember when we bootlegged movies instead of going to the theatre.
"Piracy right now loses the movie industry money. Perhaps one day they'll find a way to make money off of piracy that is above and beyond the money the lose from it, but right now they lose money."
I don't see the facts any more than I did for the VCR in the 1980's. Look at this from CNN last February: "Last year was the first year since 1991 that movie studios saw less U.S. box office revenue than the year before, as revenue slipped to $9.28 billion from $9.32 billion a year earlier." (CNN Money
Notice that 1991 was a bad year too? Could slumping sales have something to do with the economy in general? If I were looking at this, I was assume that it was more logical to conclude that dropping sales in 2002-2003 and back in 1991 were due to the recovering economies. Later on in the article, they're talking about how things are improving. They expect to be doing well this year or next. It sounds like that will go right along with the economy, not by stopping p2p networks. Based on the earlier "laughing college students", I don't think that p2p is in a downturn right now. I'm not arguing that piracy helps the movie industry, I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt it. P2p networks, on the other hand, are what the MPAA is actually going after to fight piracy. I'd like to see the situation resolved in court. The VCR was found legal because there were more noninfringing uses for it. I agree that there's a lot of crap on them now, but I also find it useful for legal uses. How many movie trailers, articles, and mirrored pages have you seen displayed right here after a story's link has been slashdotted? I bet Foxnews, CNN, BBC, et
I'm not following the logic here.
This all started with you saying that if the MPAA was fighting against it, it must me losing them money. I gave you an example (the VCR) were they were wrong. VCR's != lost revenue (actually quite the opposite). Even though the above statement about VCR's are true, they still fought against it. How can this be? Your contention was the MPAA only would fight something that would lose them money. Both statements cannot be true, and you can look up the VCR example on google.
My point, which is being diluted over the course of the topic changing, is that the MPAA has been shortsighted and dead wrong before about new technology. I could even see a future where the MPAA uses customers' bandwidth to deliver, very cheaply, video-on-demand.....via p2p. There is a difference between p2p and piracy. The MPAA isn't making that distinction.
I'd like to see a dorm room case where the roommates are using a wireless gateway for laptops. I suppose whoever's name is on the account would be responsible for how it was used. The crappy thing about these lawsuits is that most people can't afford to go up against them in court. I wish some group like EFF would spring to defend one good case so we can get an idea how it would actually go in court. Even for the poor guy with the wireless hub, in the above example, would be settling instead of fighting the RIAA. There has to be cases pending against people that aren't legitimate. No, I am not volunteering.
I've no doubt that piracy has "lost some money", but where are the actual numbers to back up the claim. If you take the previous example with the movie industry this would become clearer. VCR's were originally the bane of Hollywood. The MPAA fought against them tooth and nail because they were worried about revenue. Well, in hindsight, they were completely wrong. They routinely make more money on rentals and movies sales (tapes/DVDs) than they do in the box office. This is a great example of how shortsighted the MPAA can be. They want to keep the status quo and are afraid of new technology. I'm not trying to claim they're a bunch of luddites, but when new tech is introduced, they risk losing their control over the industry. Your argument lacks logic because you fail to accept that the MPAA could act in a way that is illogical. The VCR example proves that they will fight just to keep the 'status quo'. Anyway, my point was the college students weren't laughing at the poor working Joes, but at the MPAA's weak argument. Apparently, you fall to the other side.
"It's ironic that a theater full of college students would laugh at someone defending their livelihood."
This statement is only valid for the people that buy into the RIAA/MPAA's rhetoric that every download = a lost sale. Have the number of movies in Hollywood decreased over the last few years? These people (assuming their not just actors) are paid a wage to do a job. Unless the movie industry collapses or declines as a result of downloads (I'd say if it declines it's due to crappy movies), these peoples livelihoods are not being threatened by downloaders. I think the students, who by the way paid to see a movie, were laughing at the ridiculousness of the claim. I don't think they were being cruel to the poor workers in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year.
There's an article from a month or two ago, on Slashdot, talking about the spinoff series for SG-1. I'm hoping they keep the quality of the original with the new show.
Aren't "security blimps" and "weather balloons" just a cover for the real UFO's anyway. Shhhhh, they can hear us.
One of the nice things about GNU/Linux, is that anybody can innovate with a new project. If a new file browser is innovative and well received than the idea could take off. Unfortunately, most end users, (at least non-technical office) have no idea how the file structure exists. I've known plenty of people that can't find something unless it's on their desktop. Yes, this is the same group that keeps opening up attachments from unknown emails. If we're talking about getting GNU/Linux on the desktop, more "user-friendly" is always better. The OSS community has an opportunity to really push ahead with new interfaces and applications, but the usability needs to improve first. One of the greatest strengths and weaknesses with GNU/Linux is the sheer number of choices. Even to an experienced end-user, the number of programs on a basic distribution can be overwhelming. Depending on the flavor, installing applications can be very daunting. I started playing around with distributions in early 1996, and in 8 years, the community has made great progress in the installation and usability of the platform. The more users we get, the more drivers we'll get from vendors. It's very frustrating that ATI hasn't been more helpful to the community, but the market share is so low that they don't bother too much. All and all, if the GNU/Linux community continues to improve the distributions for the desktop, it will only help. I'm not sure we want to end up with a free Windows clone, but Windows, OSX, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.... all have features and advantages that could be used for inspiration.
I agree with most of what you say. My previous post about innovation was in response to "defining the game" by innovating. I just think a large company like Microsoft could swoop in and (control/screw up) the standards. That's not to say that I think the OSS community should stop coming up with new ideas at all.
"You propose that we can define the game, that we can lead, that Microsoft is perfectly willing, if necessary, to clone the efforts of the F/OSS community"
I'm not sure I agree here. Even if the OSS community develops the next "killer app", Microsoft can throw enough money and development to gain more market share. Take the word processor. Microsoft did not invent the word processor. After years of them throwing money at it, where is the market now? If they don't "define the game", why do people advertise alternatives as being compatible with Microsoft Office? They may not have had the idea, but through time, money and market share they've become the de facto standard. As long as Microsoft controls 90%+ of the market share in desktop computing, they can redefine most "games." Now, I'm not arguing that GNU/Linux needs to compete on market share with Microsoft to be useful, but we need more users to really be successful in the desktop. Like it or not, infusing money into GNU/Linux is what will improve it the most on the desktop. I could go on and on about the pros and cons of both OS's, but most readers already know them. Even without Microsoft's head start in market share, Windows has some major advantages to the beginning/inexperienced user (and believe me, there are a lot of them in business). Emulating some things are necessary if you want to see GNU/Linux increase on the desktop. After all, all of the OS's windows managers had bump from Xerox.
/I'm not saying that market share is the driving force, or even necessary for GNU/Linux overall.
Hey, come here. If you want "homebrew", I'll sell you plans to make a 100 inch projector for $10 worth of parts.
Seriously, has anyone ever bought one of those "fresnel lens kits" off ebay? You can post anonymously to tell us about it.
I think if you know what you are looking for, Ebay can be a good source....but, remember that those bulbs can cost a few hundred to replace. Homebrew could give you decent results. I'm not sure if you set up a nice room you'd want a homebrew in the theatre room. Computer projectors are getting cheaper ($1500.00 range these days) and might be a good solution, especially if you are thinking about a HTPC. If you are even close to the $3,000.00 mark, I'd start looking into some plasma or LCD displays. With flat panel displays getting cheaper, the prospect of a projection screen becomes less and less desireable to me. To be honest, if I were looking at over $1,000, I'd rather get a HDTV. I think most a/v geeks would be disappointed with the homebrew approach to projectors. If you like DIY projects though, it could be fun.
I can't stand the idea of Enterprise continuing...they need a new idea, new writers and no more Braga/Berman. I don't normally read the books, but a friend got me to read the "Section 31" series and it would be great. I think a Section 31 series in the period after Voyager would keep fans happy. The TOS actors are too old for a prequel and I don't see them recasting the roles. Deep Space Nine's finale left very little to follow up on. Voyager got home. I'm thinking this would be an Enterprise project for sure.
"NO cutesy-poo whimps like Wesley"
Hey, cut the guy some slack...hasn't he suffered enough.
"This is something that has bothered me for quite sometime. If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement. The property is there, and there is NO money changing hands. Perhaps I just need a swift kick to understand."
Copyright infringement happens when a person copies someone else's copyrighted items without permission. The argument, is that the "sharer's" computer will make a copy of the file that it is in the process of sharing. A lot of people are getting "fair use" and copyright infringement mixed up. You don't have to profit in order to commit it and owning a copy of the media in question has no bearing on the activity. You only have very limited copying rights to media under "fair use" and the above example doesn't fall into that category. Making "backups" for media you own, by downloading from someone else, is not legal under copyright laws. The copyright infringement happens because nobody, other than the holder of the copyright, has the authority to distribute and copy copy-protected media.
"I wonder when they'll scale up to urinating in the water cooler? Happens at every company."
...for all of the people that think bottled water is a waste of money...
Could that be because your division, being outsourced, is paid less in salaries?
"1. If I'm downloading copies of song which I already own on CD, then I'm not infringing, am I? Maybe I'm just too lazy to rip my own disks. I can think of other reasons why I might do that."
I don't know what your legal liability is, but the person you are "sharing" from is clearly in violation of copyright infringement. They are providing/making illegal copies of material that they don't own the copyright to. That is where the "copyright infringement" is going on. Under "Fair Use" you can make copies for personal use, but you can't distribute copies to others. That's kind of the whole point behind copyright. Think about it this way: Say you just bought the latest and greatest Britney Spears album and copied it at home. You make 500 copies to give to people for backups. Say you set up a stand on a steet and give out those discs. Do you think you are not breaking any laws? How long do you think it would take before you were wearing cuffs?
The RIAA isn't going after people for having copies of mp3's. Whether you own a legal copy of the song is not important. The RIAA is looking for people sharing the songs, and if the mp3 is copyrighted, it is infringement. "Fair Use" does not include downloading or sharing "backup copies" of songs that you once owned. They don't care if you own it or not. While the DMCA gives some shelter to the ISP or school, they still have to follow up on complaints to be compliant. Thats why people are getting letters about sharing movies online. For repeated offenses, the ISP in question is under legal obligation to shut you off. Your defense is to dispute the complaint, but be prepared to hire a lawyer and only if you are innocent. This seems like a way to help the school ISP's save time by blocking as much traffic on p2p as they can. I have a feeling they are really caving into pressure from the *AA's. There's tons of legitimate uses for p2p, but we need to get it out of our heads that it's legal to download/share copyrighted material for "backup" purposes...that is clearly copyright infringement. /listening to my que of 4500 "legally obtained" mp3's right now ;)
You do realize that by registering as a member of these forums you were automatically added to the National Nerd Roster, I hope.
Hey mods, that "first post" was supposed to be a joke. "I don't need no stinking broadband" and my "First Post" comment was a good 150 comments into the thread. Maybe it wasn't that funny, but being modded down like it was offtopic is a little harsh. /oh well
The sad thing is, I'd gladly take back Voyager if I could just forget about this Enterprise thing.
First Post!
I've got an old copy of Windows 95 if anyone is interested. I'll start the bidding at $50.00.
Based on the repair costs I've seen people pay for both computers and cars, I'd guess a lot of consumers don't have that basic understanding. I hate to argue this for Microsoft, but I think that if they can improve their "firewall" to the feature set of ZoneAlarm, you could reduce the amount of spyware on people's computers. They would have a reason to do this to. The type of consumer that doesn't regularly run a firewall/antyspyware tools, won't know what is causing the massive bottlenecks on their PC's. This only give the Windows OS a bad name. I'd be all for some kind of default toolset that would provide a basic firewall and spyware removal tool for the "ignorant." I know for me, it would greatly reduce the hours I sit at friends' and family's computers removing the crap.