We should respect MS copyrights just as we expect MS to respect GPL. Sure MS may be dirty, but we are better than them.
The parents is what people should be saying here. Respect others as you would have them respect you, regardless of how evil/vile they are. MS may be a convicted monopoly and leveraging computer and software companies, but trading their copyrighted code illegally is not justified
What if you believe that copyright is generally evil?
I craft C++ code for a living. I use copyright defensively: I wouldn't copyright if everyone else and their mother did.
Same thing with patents. An invention of mine dealing with de-centralized statistics calculation and aggregation is being patented. I personally wouldn't bother to patent it (would rather have it public domain only) if it weren't for the fact that other companies would not hessitate to sue me into the ground if i used "their" ideas.
So, I am stuck by their actions, into doing the very thing I am against: seeking IP protection. However, I strongly advocate an existence where such is not needed and not possible anymore.
IMHO feel free to break copyrights & patents (even mine), but don't be surprised if you are counter-sued for violating MY IP, if you sue me for violating YOURS.
-dave-
Looking for a real, non-Kerry DEAN alternative?
Get the Real Deal: Dennis Kucinich for president! He has the right view on issues that SlashGeeks will love!
Yet my work is 'performed' only once (when I code it) and yet is run on a playback device (that others already paid for) over and over again. By your logic, I should only be able to sell one copy of any software that I write.
After all, I'm asking for a 'stream of endless payments' for not doing anything but making copies of what I already have.
That is completely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the value of my software is not in it's creation, but in the continuing value it provides. You may open it 1000000 times, and everytime it is likely to prove useful to you (otherwise why would you use it?). When you are buying the software you are really buying the hours and hours of hard work that I put into building it.
It's the same exact thing here. Sure, you can make money on live performances. However, creating copies of performances and providing on demand playback of those performances is EXTREMELY valuable as well. It entertains people, it passes time, it comforts.. recorded music has many functions. When you buy a CD your aren't buying a bucket of bits, but rather you are paying for the hard work and talent that went into producing those copies. You listen to music because it's valuable, but it's value lies not in it's physical qualities but in it's end result.
What is completely ludicrous, sir, is your conclusion.
By your arguments, if I lend my hammer to my friend to pound some nails, then he should have to pay HomeDepot (or where ever) for the priveledge.
Likewise, if I use my hammer every day, I may get 1000000 uses out of it and it may be valuable to me each and every time.
Alternatively, I could give my hammer one-after-another to each of my 1000000 friends (yeah, I am THAT popular!) and let each of them take a crack at thier respective nails.
Should they each have to pay a cut to HomeDepot?
What about this: Each of the 1000000 friends looks at the hammer I lent them, then constructs another one for themselves, so that they neither have to bug me for it, or buy it outright.
Now should they have to pay a chunk to HomeDepot?
Of course not.
Don't be rediculous.
I am also a software writer as you describe. I also understand the market forces and economic desires you describe.
However, understand that you entire reasoning seems to be built due to your desire to profit each and every "transfer" of the program you write. This is natural to desire, as it will lead to great profit compared to the alternative.
Just like, HomeDepot forcing each of my 1000000 friends to pay a cut to use my hammer which I purchased would really profit HomeDepot.
However, "potentially profitable" != "fair, accepted, and (what is generally considered) moral"
I would find it hard to beleive[sic] that you would expect someone to cut your hair (something presumably valuable) and yet not pay for it when you leave. Why is a recording different? Just because it's easy to copy it doesn't make it right.
So, you get your hair cut. You walk outside the barber shop, and I see your haircut.
Suppose that I want the same haircut, and "copy" it by taking your picture, walking into a completing barbershop, show your picture, and say, "do that to my hair". Should I have to pay your original haircutter because I copied her work?
Of course not!
However, this IS the result of what you are arguing.
To put it quite plainly, and IMHO, there is NO MORAL ISSUE here!
People can PROFIT MORE by reducing the scope of "customer activities" after the sale of object X. This does not require that X be "information" or "digital" to be true. I refer you to the accepted "rights of first sale" for this, and the legal history of why this is not accepted practice.
Moving into the "digital" or "information" realm doesn't change this situation at all. People can STILL profit more by limiting purchaser's options after purchasing. This does not make
Maybe DRM actually makes sense in this context. I would rather be unable to get porn at all than be prosecuted for planted porn. (the OS could be programmed to reject any files that have porno-like meta-data in their headers, or however DRM works). Granted, this solution would keep all porn (including "legal" porn) out, but it would solve the problem.
So you advocate suppressing the TURING COMPLETENESS of modern PCs, in a rush to assist law enforcement?
You may be interested in looking up the FCC BROADCAST FLAG debaucle, and learning from their mistake before you suggest this seriously.
Consider:
The encrypted transport layer of DirectTV acts very much like the "porn headers" you propose.
Do they stop people from using them? No.
There is a term for this, something like "declaring the negative" or something, but I cannot find it...
So let's say someone breaks into the MegaCorp computer and causes billions of dollars in damage and causes a few powerplants to go off line in the East Coast of the US during a heatwave causing many people to die.
I bet you support the USA-PATRIOT act too, don't ya?
The ends do NOT justify the means.
The severity of the crime (killing hundreds of American public) does not justify the lack of "proovability" there.
What if the above scenario happened, and I changed your PC logs to make it look like you did it?
Consider this:
Would fingerprints be usable in court as evidence if I could leave YOUR fingerprints behind me when I do something?
What about DNA? Would it be usable if I could easily leave YOUR dna behind?
Of course not!
And, that does NOT change just because the severity of the crime goes up. Let's get really extreme here:
What if Bush was assasinated (hold the cheers!) and digital "evidence" of planning said crime appeared on your machine? Should this "evidence" be admissable because you shot Bush?
Frankly, you can prove mathematically with some simple tech these days that not even a single pixel in a digital photograph had been altered. It'd much easier to fake an old-fashioned analog photograph.
Frankly, no ya can't!
Please provide some reference to back up this claim.
And don't use HASHES, or else describe how you plan on proving that the HASH is original, or even that it refers to the hash of the original image.
Uhhhhh...you just made it next to impossible to prosecute a lot of crimes. Take kiddie porn for example - you're saying that a hard drive full of kiddie porn images shouldn't be admissable?
Damn Straight!!!
When it is not possible to prove that a crime was committed, how can it be reasonable to advocate prosecution of said "crime"?
Isn't that just asking for abuse?
Disassociate the REAL issue (lack of provability) with the EMOTIONAL plea (save the children, stop kiddy porn).
-dave-
PS:
Do you advocate Illegalizing the Hollywood movie industry? After all, since "consuming Kiddyporn leads to child abuse" (hence its need to be illegalized), doesn't consuming visual violence, abuse, and nudity do the same, leading to physical and mental abuse?
If not, you are as hypocritical as everyone else who arbitrarily supports "save the kids"-style legislation. The same rationalization applies in both cases.
I bet you think the USA-PATRIOT act is a good idea, too! =)
Those who would trade essential freedoms for temporary, illusory, "children's safety" will receive neither, and deserve naught!!
Sadly, too many people (read: average American) won't know enough about this to care, however any jury I am on with digital evidence as the only (or major) supporting evidence will result in an acquittal for the defendant.
Being a computer professional, I realize that the concept of "secure, digital evidence" is as oxymoronish as "secure, digital voting".
That is, it MAY be secure eventually, but for now (and the forseeable future) it sure isn't, and there is the issue of "Do I TRUST the AG's office to not tamper?". I say no.
I don't have a link for it now, and am too lazy to look one up, but I saw somewhere that digital signiatures on data will be acceptable as some level of "proof". Isn't that idiotic?
So anyone who can brute-force, guess, social engineer, (whatever), your private key can cause YOU to become criminally liable for thier acts!
This isn't just "let's keep a secret", it's "go to jail if XXX determines your secret and wants to put you there".
Scary stuff, that. The sad thing is that Joe American probably won't realize this, and the Judge sure won't tell them. I bet that a lot of innocent people are going to be convicted for crimes that they either:
a) didn't do
b) no "REAL" proof they did it.
i just have my thai hooker click ACCEPT for me. she's under 18 and not even a citizen, so i'm pretty much in the clear.
not so. she's an agent to whom you have given actual authority. you--as the principal--are therefore responsible for any contracts that she enters on your behalf by clicking "accept."
Ok, then I have my cat walk on the keyboard. My cat is definitely not a citizen, and I'm pretty sure he's under 18 (at least he LOOKS under 18), and he's never been to law school so I'm willing to bet he couldn't be formally have authority as principal conferred on him in a way that I couldn't somehow contest. Of course if the cat decides to roll over and testify against me it could get ugly. I'd probably give him a good spraying with the hose.
Not sure if you are joking, but:
I, for one, have had my cat sell his soul to Microsoft through the many oppressive EULAs which he has agreed to, through this very method.
The network operators could easily log the names of files that are being downloaded. They don't, because that information could be subpeonaed, and it would give clear indication that Kazaa is a copyrighted music/video swapping tool.
Let me be the first one to educate you then, as a professional in the p2p field.
For our business, there wouldn't be any way we could do this.
For Kazaa (who is about 10x or more our network size) this wouldn't be possible!
P2p software generally doesn't contact a central server for each file downloaded.
That would place a load on the central, logging server which is proportional to the number of file transfers!
The benefit of p2p is that it is distributed, and DOESN'T (or shouldn't) place a proportional load in this fashion.
That's like saying that we can use an internal combustion engine (efficient) but should restrict ourselves to horse&buggy (innefficient) because some external 3rd party says so.
I work developing imporvements to p2p technology, and coming up with great (hopefully) uses of the distributed nature of this network.
We can collect some fascinating stuff without paying a "penalty" proportional to network size or files transferred! In fact, the "central" penalty is constant!
Without this technology, we couldn't possibly collect accurate, rapid data from thousands or millions of clients. Why? The costs would be proportional, not constant!!
You are asking Kazaa to foot the bill for a PROPORTIONAL technology, not a CONSTANT-priced one. This could be the change from "profitable, self-sustaining, & improving" and "unprofitable, unrealistic, arcaic client/server only"
Although Kazaa is a direct competitor of ours, I must stick by them here. Asking them to build a proportional, central system is not practical, especially simply to placate a 3rd party like this.
NOTE: RIAA had plenty of oppertunity to implement such a system with their OWN $$$. Why should they be able to require that Kazaa spend Kazaa's $$$ on this, when it would only benefit RIAA, and only cripple the nice thing about p2p: decentralization.
[...]
And you can't copyright a fact. A copyright on a 9, 10, or 11 digit number just isn't going to stand,
[...]
Well let me be the first to drag RIAA into this...
If one subscribes to RIAA legal logic then you can copyright the many-many-digit binary number that is the representation of the bitmap image (barcode) should be "protectable", especially binary representation of the 2-d image of it.
By association, the lesser-quality or lossy, smaller (in terms of data) representations should be protected, right? Pretty much anything that can substitute as a usable copy, right?
Seems that the act of copying that data (your original bitmap, or apparently, any usable representation of it) to thier devices would be a violation.
Time to send in the Copyright Enforcers(tm). Perhaps if they "voluntarily" hand over the infringing equipment (all PCs used in the process) we the infringed may agree not to sue.
It's certainly amusing, but they have no serious legal leg to stand on which I can see. And why sue for copyright infringement of all things, besides the irony factor? You might be able to get something on them for breaking the TOS, [...]
Get the facts first... but then, this is Slashdot.
NOTE: IANAL but IAAP2pD(eveloper). Our EULA specifically forbids using our software for the purposes of identifying users for legal action. Also, specific companies and known agents of RIAA/MPAA are explicitly barred from usage of our software. Violating this clause of the terms results in revoced license, and any continued useage (perhaps even continued possession) may be in violation of civil law.
Apparently, they have no legal right to use the copyrighted material, according to the copyright-law view presented in lawsuits that they themselves file.
Personally, I think this is peotic justice, and (if EULAs can be upheld) they should probably win.
Of course, EULAs and the like shouldn't really be enforceable IMHO, and this will just further illustrate and compound the problems in "patchwork" laws created by the introduction of the Internet.
-dave-
(Shameless Plug) Use BearShare for all your p2p needs.
Think again, we have the Patriot Act as the front runner for this kinda shit. Seriously, I'm voting Libertarian this election. I'm tired of the same old Demo/Repub bull shit!! Arrtrrggghhhhhhaaaa
Vote for Dennis Kucinich!
He voted against the Patriot Act!
I reccommend him and his platform completely.
The solution ISPs can use is weighted fair queueing.
This ensures that one person does not destroy the bandwidth of another. It is a hell of a lot better then making users worry about how much they download.
One such implementation is the Weighted Round Robin qdisc in Linux:
http://wipl-wrr.dkik.dk/wrr/
There are other implementations that scale better.
I say this every time someone brings up the "scarce bandwidth" issue, but no one ever listens and ISP continue to use draconian way to solve their bandwidth issues that could *easily* be solved with a little algorithm.
Dude...
I have been smoking, and even I can see your flawed reasoning.
It's not that complex, but let's see if I can make it look that way.
The root problem is that isp has X bandwidth capacity that they have purchased from their upstream provider for $BIG cost
ISP then sells broadband accounts to C customers.
This should allow a mamximum worst-case of X/C bandwidth available per user, so ISP can advirtise, say, X/nC to each customer, n>1 to give them a little leeway.
ISP realizes that $BIG/C is way too large, and that the average customer only uses the equivelent of a maxed out connection for 1/Dth of the day.
Now ISP can reduce cost to each customer by a factor of D ($BIG/C ==> $BIG/CD), and still kind-of claim that they offer "X/C" (short-to-mid-term burst) bandwidth to each user, by getting D times as many customers (C ==> CD).
This includes the built-in assumption that each customer only uses X/C for 1/Dth of the day. So although the promised (mid-length-term burst) speeds are X/C, the real (long-term) bandwidth available MAX per customer is X/DC.
So far, so good:
users * bandwidth * daily user usage l.t.e. BW available
(CP) * (X/nC) * (1/D) l.t.e. X
Now, remove P power users from group of C customers, and let them exceed the "expected" daily usage tremendously. Specifically, assume that they complement the "expected" daily usage exactly (1/D ==> (D-1)/D), for the sake of argument.
(10) I need coffee. Damn parents calling me at 6am telling me to turn on the TV when they know damn well that I don't own a TV and haven't for years... grr...
Argh...
My family called me 5 times this morning, waking me & my GF up, for this news...
I was as pleased as you. haha
-dave-
Even if you hate Bush, think the war was wrong, unjustified and so on you cannot honestly say that the world is not a better place without him being a free man. Will this magically fix all the problems in Iraq? Of course not, doesn't mean it's still not important.
You are arguing VERY clearly that the ends justify the means, and I call BullShit!
I believe that the 68m+ US$$ spent to make "the world a better place" "without [Sadaam] being a free man" is a horrible appropriation of US taxpayer dollars (including my own).
Let's consider...
1) Billions spent in Iraq to accomplish... this? Don't give me the "liberation of Iraq" crap because that is ex-post-facto argument used to "re-direct" attention away from Bush co. lies about WMD.
2) The US now the laughingstock of the world, and thought of as the largest threat to world peace, and rightly so. To argue this would be laughable!
I could make more reasons for hours...
Just keep repeating to yourself:
How many hungry people could $68,000,000,000.00 US feed?
How many sick people could be treated?
How many children could be sent to better schools? How could the schooling conditions be improved?
Looking at the big picture, i assert firmly that you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
The world was MUCH better off when Sadaam was free, US soldiers were here, civil liberties were guaranteed for(and wanted by) Americans, and we had that $68 Billion back.
without $COPYRIGHT anyone could distribute the $MEDIA anytime in any format any way they want. All without having to pay a penny to $ANYONE. This in essence would kill the $ENTERTAINMENT industry. $MAKING_AND_DISTRIBUTING_MOVIES_AND_BOOKS isn't cheap.
(emphasis mine)
And therefore, we should have our natural abilities (natural ability to store and reproduce information) restricted and limited to maintain this outdated business model, and the profitability to the established system?
Sorry, but trying to forever retain control of an essentially plentiful resource by excersising artificial scarcity may work for awhile, but doesn't deserve protection, and as a practice has earned my contempt.
Let's try the simple-analogy test, OK?
Let me re-state your statement, using another example that is so similar it is almost scary.
without $MONOPOLY anyone could distribute $DIAMONDS anytime [...] they want. All without having to pay a penny to $DEBEERS. This in essence would kill the $DIAMOND_MONOPOLY industry. $HOARDING_DIAMONDS_AND_SUPPORTING_BLOODY_WARS isn't cheap.
(And before you say $HOARDING_DIAMONDS_AND_SUPPORTING_BLOODY_WARS != $MAKING_AND_DISTRIBUTING_MOVIES_AND_BOOKS), they are just both "costs of business" to the respective company.
Why is this interesting?
RIAA sues poor children (hurting their chance for a full, happy life later on) to protect its financial interests.
DeBeers supports bloody coups that disfigure poor children (hurting their chance for a full, happy life later on) to protect its financial interests.
Should all other diamond sources be stopped, to protect DeBeers?
By your logic, yes.
I say, assuredly not!.
In both cases, the $COMPANY of interest is doing increasingly more thug-like activities to enforce the artificial scarcity (and therefore, the artificial value) of their respective $PRODUCTS.
I see little difference in their business methods, also.
... But forget about movie making. [...] What it boils down to is copyright protects the media from illegal distribution which takes a bite out of profit. Profit that would otherwise help fund more artists make there dreams come true. Music books and other art could possibly survive without copyright but film is a whole other story.
Four thoughts on this.
1) You got it: copyright helps established entities PROFIT in today's system. Companies that can then turn around and lobby lawmakers for even more profit^H^H^Htection from customers.
2) Profit is currently the end result of copyright. However, the mechanisms by which copyright leads to profit are inherantly "detrimental" to the general public, at least (theoretically) in the short term. Combine this with ever-expanding "protection" == ever increasing "detrimental-ity" of copyright system to general public, and the ever more brute-ish "enforcement means" that said companies would ask for as "legal enforcement methods" is obscene to the average person.
3) I, for one, would be in favor of complete abolishment or "return to original 7-year-term" rollback of copyright. I would also be in favor of a complete freeze of new penal laws, especially felony-level laws. Just to contradict myself, I also would completely support a law mandating the pillary to anyone (natural person, or officers of artificial person, but not govn't) who knowingly supplies a politician with money, and a double-flogging & tar/feather for any politician that accepts same. Anyone else think that this would be a good direction to go in? After that, it would be harder for we (the people) to grant a priveledge (limited monopoly) to a company, and then have that con
I was one of the thousands of protestors in Miami over the week of Nov 21st.
As we feared, our protests were met by a massive show of state repression, backed by $8.5 million in US Government funding. Miami Police Commissioner John Timoney oversaw a massive, paramilitary assault on our constitutional and human rights
Protestors were attacked by police wielding batons, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber, wooden, and plastic bullets and other chemical agents
I was there, and this is the saddest thing I have ever seen.
We need a violent revolution to overthrow the "ruling class" government that so blatently disregards mine (and 20 thousand other people's) voices in protest, and goes so far as to actively harrass, attack, intimidate, and arrest peaceful protestors like myself.
It was like a war zone there in Miami, and IMHO a new war, another revolutionary war, is/was exactly what is/was needed to get the point across.
Our freedom-loving forefathers are probably weeping in their collective graves, at that attrocity. Our current regime would have been rouded up and hung or chased out of the country by them!
I personally was fairly passivistic (sp?) during the protests, but when I watched the SWAT teams beat up gentle, non-violent protesters, and shoot them with rubber bullets, and tear gas them, I just wanted to rip their heads off, and beat them with there own billy clubs...
I'm getting a little sick of the "I didn't know it was wrong" defense.
That's just it.
It isn't wrong!
I and millions of others around the world, of all ages and creeds, are demonstrating this firm belief actively.
A better phrasing is is "I didn't know it was illegal" as who could expect her to, it not being wrong?
(Flawed analogy I know) That would be like suing a child for $750 per call for violation of the DNC list because they prank called you at 2am (something may be illegal but isn't really wrong per se)
As a major developer of one of the world's leading Gnutella clients this data is old, untimely, and really not "new news" to anyone involved in Gnutella.
Much of this data is based upon estimates & reported crawler (ha!) data.
Want some real, hardcore data about Gnutella (or at least the BearShare portion of it)?
I invented a revolutionary distributed stats system that is in place in the latest versions of BearShare. No more guessing about p2p network information, like transfer bandwidth, etc.
Try checking outsome of my results.
This data is collected from the network, in a brand new, distributed, 'polled-not-crawled' scheme with remarkably fast turnaround times on data (new data points every 5 mins, on average).
Much, if not all, of this in the above report information is actively being summarrized for Gnutella (again, the BearShare portion at least) and some early (non-automated graphing) of the results can be found in the above links.
Expect (some of) this data (like node count, shared files/bytes, etc) to be available on our website (in real time) soon.
Kinda interesting...
In any case , story data is not novel any more, certainly not timely. =)
I was all set to write a rapid-fire response to CNN, and then I saw parent post.
This post so clearly summed up my feelings, that it inspired my complete response to CNN.
I hope you (parent) don't mind that I included your post in my response, I didn't claim it as my own.
My response to CNN:
Dear sir or madam,
This is in response to your recent story, entitled "Worries grow over new voting machines' reliability, security".
Let me start by giving you my own background. I am a computer programmer with an extensive understanding of this situation.
I am also an outspoken opponent of the Diebold election systems being used, and of "closed" elections in general.
My thoughts on this subject (in general) can be found here: http://www.bearshare.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=25336
After reading your article, I was all ready to begin writing an immediate response.
Patience prevailed, and I decided to consult with many others in my field. Lo and behold, everything which I had been strugling to verbalize up to that point had been nicely encoded by another, more poignant member of my profession.
The relevant quotes from your news passage are:
"The computer science community has pretty much rallied against electronic voting," said Stephen Ansolabahere, a voting expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "A disproportionate number of computer scientists who have weighed in on this issue are opposed to it."
And
"Computer [voting machine] manufacturers and many election officials say the critics are mistaken. They insist that security is solid and machines records are examinable. They also say the sought-after improvements will create other problems, such as malfunctioning machines and violating the integrity of a voters' privacy."
[text in brackets is mine]
Here is the response from my fellow Computer professional, which I feel perfectly represents the situation:
"The complaints about lever machines in the early 1900's did not come from mechanical engineers. Instead, they came from groups of people who did not understand these "confounded contraptions". The election officials could, or could allow anyone to, examine the insides and workings of these machines. There was no secrecy about it.
Ironically, the complaints about punch cards have, in part, come true. This is why we are doing this rush to computer voting in the first place, because the punch card system in Florida (and as it turns out, elsewhere, too) showed the faults in the system. But despite the flaws in punch card systems, there was no secrecy; they could be examined and the flaws could be seen and understood.
Both systems above were not only "open systems", but also had various audit trails incorporated. While not perfect, punch cards could be manually counted if machine counts were suspect. The flaw with Diebold and other electronic voting systems isn't that they are electronic, nor is it even that they might be connect to, or through, the internet. Instead, the flaw is that unlike their predecessors, these systems are closed, and have no audit trails.
Unlike past systems, where the concerns were raised by people that didn't know much about the technology they were based on, the issues being raised about electronic voting systems are being raised by people who fully understand this technology, the flaws that are inherint in the technology itself, and the methodologies needed to compensate for such flaws, and ensure reliable and correct operation despite such flawed technology. All the voting systems have flaws, and they always will. What sets the past systems apart from what vendors are trying to push on us today is that those past systems were known to be flawed to a certain degree, and they could be examined to verify that. What ven
Slashdot Mirror
Someone mod this parent up!
If 10,000 people put these on 100 CDs each, "average" people may start to get the message!
-dave-
What if you believe that copyright is generally evil?
I craft C++ code for a living. I use copyright defensively: I wouldn't copyright if everyone else and their mother did.
Same thing with patents. An invention of mine dealing with de-centralized statistics calculation and aggregation is being patented. I personally wouldn't bother to patent it (would rather have it public domain only) if it weren't for the fact that other companies would not hessitate to sue me into the ground if i used "their" ideas.
So, I am stuck by their actions, into doing the very thing I am against: seeking IP protection. However, I strongly advocate an existence where such is not needed and not possible anymore.
IMHO feel free to break copyrights & patents (even mine), but don't be surprised if you are counter-sued for violating MY IP, if you sue me for violating YOURS.
-dave-
Looking for a real, non-Kerry DEAN alternative?
Get the Real Deal: Dennis Kucinich for president! He has the right view on issues that SlashGeeks will love!
Not in MY p2p client!
-dave-
What is completely ludicrous, sir, is your conclusion.
By your arguments, if I lend my hammer to my friend to pound some nails, then he should have to pay HomeDepot (or where ever) for the priveledge.
Likewise, if I use my hammer every day, I may get 1000000 uses out of it and it may be valuable to me each and every time.
Alternatively, I could give my hammer one-after-another to each of my 1000000 friends (yeah, I am THAT popular!) and let each of them take a crack at thier respective nails.
Should they each have to pay a cut to HomeDepot?
What about this: Each of the 1000000 friends looks at the hammer I lent them, then constructs another one for themselves, so that they neither have to bug me for it, or buy it outright.
Now should they have to pay a chunk to HomeDepot?
Of course not.
Don't be rediculous.
I am also a software writer as you describe. I also understand the market forces and economic desires you describe.
However, understand that you entire reasoning seems to be built due to your desire to profit each and every "transfer" of the program you write. This is natural to desire, as it will lead to great profit compared to the alternative.
Just like, HomeDepot forcing each of my 1000000 friends to pay a cut to use my hammer which I purchased would really profit HomeDepot.
However, "potentially profitable" != "fair, accepted, and (what is generally considered) moral"
So, you get your hair cut. You walk outside the barber shop, and I see your haircut.
Suppose that I want the same haircut, and "copy" it by taking your picture, walking into a completing barbershop, show your picture, and say, "do that to my hair". Should I have to pay your original haircutter because I copied her work?
Of course not!
However, this IS the result of what you are arguing.
To put it quite plainly, and IMHO, there is NO MORAL ISSUE here!
People can PROFIT MORE by reducing the scope of "customer activities" after the sale of object X. This does not require that X be "information" or "digital" to be true. I refer you to the accepted "rights of first sale" for this, and the legal history of why this is not accepted practice.
Moving into the "digital" or "information" realm doesn't change this situation at all. People can STILL profit more by limiting purchaser's options after purchasing. This does not make
So you advocate suppressing the TURING COMPLETENESS of modern PCs, in a rush to assist law enforcement?
You may be interested in looking up the FCC BROADCAST FLAG debaucle, and learning from their mistake before you suggest this seriously.
Consider:
The encrypted transport layer of DirectTV acts very much like the "porn headers" you propose.
Do they stop people from using them? No.
There is a term for this, something like "declaring the negative" or something, but I cannot find it...
-dave-
I bet you support the USA-PATRIOT act too, don't ya?
The ends do NOT justify the means.
The severity of the crime (killing hundreds of American public) does not justify the lack of "proovability" there.
What if the above scenario happened, and I changed your PC logs to make it look like you did it?
Consider this:
Would fingerprints be usable in court as evidence if I could leave YOUR fingerprints behind me when I do something?
What about DNA? Would it be usable if I could easily leave YOUR dna behind?
Of course not!
And, that does NOT change just because the severity of the crime goes up. Let's get really extreme here:
What if Bush was assasinated (hold the cheers!) and digital "evidence" of planning said crime appeared on your machine? Should this "evidence" be admissable because you shot Bush?
Of course not!
-dave-
Frankly, no ya can't!
Please provide some reference to back up this claim.
And don't use HASHES, or else describe how you plan on proving that the HASH is original, or even that it refers to the hash of the original image.
-dave-
Damn Straight!!!
When it is not possible to prove that a crime was committed, how can it be reasonable to advocate prosecution of said "crime"?
Isn't that just asking for abuse?
Disassociate the REAL issue (lack of provability) with the EMOTIONAL plea (save the children, stop kiddy porn).
-dave-
PS:
Do you advocate Illegalizing the Hollywood movie industry? After all, since "consuming Kiddyporn leads to child abuse" (hence its need to be illegalized), doesn't consuming visual violence, abuse, and nudity do the same, leading to physical and mental abuse?
If not, you are as hypocritical as everyone else who arbitrarily supports "save the kids"-style legislation. The same rationalization applies in both cases.
I bet you think the USA-PATRIOT act is a good idea, too! =)
Those who would trade essential freedoms for temporary, illusory, "children's safety" will receive neither, and deserve naught!!
Sadly, too many people (read: average American) won't know enough about this to care, however any jury I am on with digital evidence as the only (or major) supporting evidence will result in an acquittal for the defendant.
Being a computer professional, I realize that the concept of "secure, digital evidence" is as oxymoronish as "secure, digital voting".
That is, it MAY be secure eventually, but for now (and the forseeable future) it sure isn't, and there is the issue of "Do I TRUST the AG's office to not tamper?". I say no.
I don't have a link for it now, and am too lazy to look one up, but I saw somewhere that digital signiatures on data will be acceptable as some level of "proof". Isn't that idiotic?
So anyone who can brute-force, guess, social engineer, (whatever), your private key can cause YOU to become criminally liable for thier acts!
This isn't just "let's keep a secret", it's "go to jail if XXX determines your secret and wants to put you there".
Scary stuff, that. The sad thing is that Joe American probably won't realize this, and the Judge sure won't tell them. I bet that a lot of innocent people are going to be convicted for crimes that they either:
a) didn't do
b) no "REAL" proof they did it.
-dave-
Ok, then I have my cat walk on the keyboard. My cat is definitely not a citizen, and I'm pretty sure he's under 18 (at least he LOOKS under 18), and he's never been to law school so I'm willing to bet he couldn't be formally have authority as principal conferred on him in a way that I couldn't somehow contest. Of course if the cat decides to roll over and testify against me it could get ugly. I'd probably give him a good spraying with the hose.
Not sure if you are joking, but:
I, for one, have had my cat sell his soul to Microsoft through the many oppressive EULAs which he has agreed to, through this very method.
-dave-
Let me be the first one to educate you then, as a professional in the p2p field.
For our business, there wouldn't be any way we could do this.
For Kazaa (who is about 10x or more our network size) this wouldn't be possible!
P2p software generally doesn't contact a central server for each file downloaded.
That would place a load on the central, logging server which is proportional to the number of file transfers!
The benefit of p2p is that it is distributed, and DOESN'T (or shouldn't) place a proportional load in this fashion.
That's like saying that we can use an internal combustion engine (efficient) but should restrict ourselves to horse&buggy (innefficient) because some external 3rd party says so.
I work developing imporvements to p2p technology, and coming up with great (hopefully) uses of the distributed nature of this network.
One such application for this is the collection of network statistics.
We can collect some fascinating stuff without paying a "penalty" proportional to network size or files transferred! In fact, the "central" penalty is constant!
Without this technology, we couldn't possibly collect accurate, rapid data from thousands or millions of clients. Why? The costs would be proportional, not constant!!
You are asking Kazaa to foot the bill for a PROPORTIONAL technology, not a CONSTANT-priced one. This could be the change from "profitable, self-sustaining, & improving" and "unprofitable, unrealistic, arcaic client/server only"
Although Kazaa is a direct competitor of ours, I must stick by them here. Asking them to build a proportional, central system is not practical, especially simply to placate a 3rd party like this.
NOTE: RIAA had plenty of oppertunity to implement such a system with their OWN $$$. Why should they be able to require that Kazaa spend Kazaa's $$$ on this, when it would only benefit RIAA, and only cripple the nice thing about p2p: decentralization.
That's my thoughts, and I am sticking by them.
-dave-
Essential Freedoms like that were revoked awhile ago! (at least, in Florida, and some other states as well...)
Just in time for the FTAA protests later that year...Thanks, (ahem)Reps
-dave-
Funniest post of the year. Laughed out loud for awhile!
Too bad it was 4:00AM. The neighbors probably think I am nuts!
-dave-
Dennis Kucinich for President! He has all the right ideas.
Well let me be the first to drag RIAA into this...
If one subscribes to RIAA legal logic then you can copyright the many-many-digit binary number that is the representation of the bitmap image (barcode) should be "protectable", especially binary representation of the 2-d image of it.
By association, the lesser-quality or lossy, smaller (in terms of data) representations should be protected, right? Pretty much anything that can substitute as a usable copy, right?
Seems that the act of copying that data (your original bitmap, or apparently, any usable representation of it) to thier devices would be a violation.
Time to send in the Copyright Enforcers (tm). Perhaps if they "voluntarily" hand over the infringing equipment (all PCs used in the process) we the infringed may agree not to sue.
Hahaha
If only it were that easy!
-dave-
Dennis Kucinich for President! All the right answers to the right issues!
He voted against the repressive USA-PATRIOT act, and wants voting reform, media and corporate reform, and drug reform!
Check him Out!
Get the facts first... but then, this is Slashdot.
NOTE: IANAL but IAAP2pD(eveloper). Our EULA specifically forbids using our software for the purposes of identifying users for legal action. Also, specific companies and known agents of RIAA/MPAA are explicitly barred from usage of our software. Violating this clause of the terms results in revoced license, and any continued useage (perhaps even continued possession) may be in violation of civil law.
Apparently, they have no legal right to use the copyrighted material, according to the copyright-law view presented in lawsuits that they themselves file.
Personally, I think this is peotic justice, and (if EULAs can be upheld) they should probably win.
Of course, EULAs and the like shouldn't really be enforceable IMHO, and this will just further illustrate and compound the problems in "patchwork" laws created by the introduction of the Internet.
-dave-
(Shameless Plug) Use BearShare for all your p2p needs.
I am an American.
I pity you for this choice.
-dave-
Vote for Dennis Kucinich!
He voted against the Patriot Act!
I reccommend him and his platform completely.
-dave-
Dude...
I have been smoking, and even I can see your flawed reasoning.
It's not that complex, but let's see if I can make it look that way.
The root problem is that isp has X bandwidth capacity that they have purchased from their upstream provider for $BIG cost
ISP then sells broadband accounts to C customers.
This should allow a mamximum worst-case of X/C bandwidth available per user, so ISP can advirtise, say, X/nC to each customer, n>1 to give them a little leeway.
ISP realizes that $BIG/C is way too large, and that the average customer only uses the equivelent of a maxed out connection for 1/Dth of the day.
Now ISP can reduce cost to each customer by a factor of D ($BIG/C ==> $BIG/CD), and still kind-of claim that they offer "X/C" (short-to-mid-term burst) bandwidth to each user, by getting D times as many customers (C ==> CD).
This includes the built-in assumption that each customer only uses X/C for 1/Dth of the day. So although the promised (mid-length-term burst) speeds are X/C, the real (long-term) bandwidth available MAX per customer is X/DC.
So far, so good:
users * bandwidth * daily user usage l.t.e. BW available
(CP) * (X/nC) * (1/D) l.t.e. X
Now, remove P power users from group of C customers, and let them exceed the "expected" daily usage tremendously. Specifically, assume that they complement the "expected" daily usage exactly (1/D ==> (D-1)/D), for the sake of argument.
What does the equaltion look like now?
[ Newbies * BW * usage ] + [ PowerUsers * BW * usage ] l.t.e. total ISP BW
[ (CD-P) * (X/nC) * (1/D) ] + [ P * (X/nC) * (D-1)/D ] l.t.e. X
solving for P yields the following:
P l.t.e. [CD(n - 1)] / [D - 2]
Unless I screwed up my maths (always possible) this should provide a reasonable estimate for the sustainabily of that model.
-dave-
(Note: l.t.e. == Less than or equal to, if it weren't for slashcode)
Argh...
My family called me 5 times this morning, waking me & my GF up, for this news...
I was as pleased as you. haha
-dave-
You are arguing VERY clearly that the ends justify the means, and I call BullShit!
I believe that the 68m+ US$$ spent to make "the world a better place" "without [Sadaam] being a free man" is a horrible appropriation of US taxpayer dollars (including my own).
Let's consider...
1) Billions spent in Iraq to accomplish... this? Don't give me the "liberation of Iraq" crap because that is ex-post-facto argument used to "re-direct" attention away from Bush co. lies about WMD.
2) The US now the laughingstock of the world, and thought of as the largest threat to world peace, and rightly so. To argue this would be laughable!
I could make more reasons for hours...
Just keep repeating to yourself:
How many hungry people could $68,000,000,000.00 US feed?
How many sick people could be treated?
How many children could be sent to better schools? How could the schooling conditions be improved?
Looking at the big picture, i assert firmly that you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
The world was MUCH better off when Sadaam was free, US soldiers were here, civil liberties were guaranteed for(and wanted by) Americans, and we had that $68 Billion back.
-dave-
(emphasis mine)
And therefore, we should have our natural abilities (natural ability to store and reproduce information) restricted and limited to maintain this outdated business model, and the profitability to the established system?
Sorry, but trying to forever retain control of an essentially plentiful resource by excersising artificial scarcity may work for awhile, but doesn't deserve protection, and as a practice has earned my contempt.
Let's try the simple-analogy test, OK? Let me re-state your statement, using another example that is so similar it is almost scary.
(And before you say $HOARDING_DIAMONDS_AND_SUPPORTING_BLOODY_WARS != $MAKING_AND_DISTRIBUTING_MOVIES_AND_BOOKS), they are just both "costs of business" to the respective company.
Why is this interesting?
RIAA sues poor children (hurting their chance for a full, happy life later on) to protect its financial interests.
DeBeers supports bloody coups that disfigure poor children (hurting their chance for a full, happy life later on) to protect its financial interests.
Should all other diamond sources be stopped, to protect DeBeers?
By your logic, yes.
I say, assuredly not!.
In both cases, the $COMPANY of interest is doing increasingly more thug-like activities to enforce the artificial scarcity (and therefore, the artificial value) of their respective $PRODUCTS.
I see little difference in their business methods, also.
Four thoughts on this.
1) You got it: copyright helps established entities PROFIT in today's system. Companies that can then turn around and lobby lawmakers for even more profit^H^H^Htection from customers.
2) Profit is currently the end result of copyright. However, the mechanisms by which copyright leads to profit are inherantly "detrimental" to the general public, at least (theoretically) in the short term. Combine this with ever-expanding "protection" == ever increasing "detrimental-ity" of copyright system to general public, and the ever more brute-ish "enforcement means" that said companies would ask for as "legal enforcement methods" is obscene to the average person.
3) I, for one, would be in favor of complete abolishment or "return to original 7-year-term" rollback of copyright. I would also be in favor of a complete freeze of new penal laws, especially felony-level laws. Just to contradict myself, I also would completely support a law mandating the pillary to anyone (natural person, or officers of artificial person, but not govn't) who knowingly supplies a politician with money, and a double-flogging & tar/feather for any politician that accepts same. Anyone else think that this would be a good direction to go in? After that, it would be harder for we (the people) to grant a priveledge (limited monopoly) to a company, and then have that con
I was there, and this is the saddest thing I have ever seen.
We need a violent revolution to overthrow the "ruling class" government that so blatently disregards mine (and 20 thousand other people's) voices in protest, and goes so far as to actively harrass, attack, intimidate, and arrest peaceful protestors like myself.
It was like a war zone there in Miami, and IMHO a new war, another revolutionary war, is/was exactly what is/was needed to get the point across.
Our freedom-loving forefathers are probably weeping in their collective graves, at that attrocity. Our current regime would have been rouded up and hung or chased out of the country by them!
I personally was fairly passivistic (sp?) during the protests, but when I watched the SWAT teams beat up gentle, non-violent protesters, and shoot them with rubber bullets, and tear gas them, I just wanted to rip their heads off, and beat them with there own billy clubs...
*(Sigh)*
-dave-
That's just it. It isn't wrong!
I and millions of others around the world, of all ages and creeds, are demonstrating this firm belief actively.
A better phrasing is is "I didn't know it was illegal" as who could expect her to, it not being wrong?
(Flawed analogy I know) That would be like suing a child for $750 per call for violation of the DNC list because they prank called you at 2am (something may be illegal but isn't really wrong per se)
-dave-
As a major developer of one of the world's leading Gnutella clients this data is old, untimely, and really not "new news" to anyone involved in Gnutella.
Much of this data is based upon estimates & reported crawler (ha!) data.
Want some real, hardcore data about Gnutella (or at least the BearShare portion of it)?
I invented a revolutionary distributed stats system that is in place in the latest versions of BearShare. No more guessing about p2p network information, like transfer bandwidth, etc. Try checking out some of my results.
This data is collected from the network, in a brand new, distributed, 'polled-not-crawled' scheme with remarkably fast turnaround times on data (new data points every 5 mins, on average).
Much, if not all, of this in the above report information is actively being summarrized for Gnutella (again, the BearShare portion at least) and some early (non-automated graphing) of the results can be found in the above links.
Expect (some of) this data (like node count, shared files/bytes, etc) to be available on our website (in real time) soon.
Kinda interesting...
In any case , story data is not novel any more, certainly not timely. =)
I like my data collections much better.
-dave-
Mod parent up.
I was all set to write a rapid-fire response to CNN, and then I saw parent post.
This post so clearly summed up my feelings, that it inspired my complete response to CNN.
I hope you (parent) don't mind that I included your post in my response, I didn't claim it as my own.
My response to CNN: