This is absolutely astonishing that a group of people that have never even cared about anything other than their servers/channels can come together and absolutely annihilate a worm of this magnitude.
I proves that teamwork can accomplish great things regardless of the circumstances.
I don't expect an answer but here are the questions I asked:
If the RIAA is going to say that they won't go after people and then change directions and then sue Verizon for access to private information about its users then sue four college kids for operating Windows file sharing search engines, why would consumers continue to support the RIAA (an organization that obviously goes back on its own word) by purchasing music or other media from the organizations that support the RIAA?
Also, with the increase of recent anti-spam legislation what will the RIAA do to counteract the "destined to come" lawsuits due to its spamming of P2P networks?
This will be a wonderful display of how "ready" the RIAA is for the public.
Buy.com was built around a huge server farm that scoured the web and found the best prices for products it sells and then beat those prices (to the best of its ability). That has changed a little now but buy.com was built from that.
Also, Pricewatch, Pricegrabber and Froogle scour the web for prices and create search engines out of them so consumers can find the best price.
I'm not saying just because everyone else is doing it means you can too (and you might have a slightly different objective causing these examples to be weightless) but it's being done all over the place.
Just when I was starting to go one direction with my theories on Google PR the game gets switched. I thought I was going to have the upper hand for once. Oh well. It would be nice to see this happen as a true user service.
"Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?"
God I hope so. The world would be better without them now. If they're going to try tactics like the RIAA, they best be careful.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my initial post or maybe no one gets it. To "donate" software would be to give it away free. There is nothing illegal about giving things away for free (no strings attached, of course). Giving "discounts" is a lot different than underhanded pricing tactics. A discount could be for bulk purchases, good clients, etc. Discounts could also go to poor countries, poor people, or starving artists.
We're not talking about the oil industry, or railroad companies. We're talking about tech in the 21st century. Combining 21st century legal processes with the tech industry makes getting anything accomplished very difficult.
This isn't an "illegal" tactic for another reason (as far as lawyers go). Open source is FREE! Technically speaking (using logic presented to me in two replies thus far) that could be illegal.
So is open source trying to compete with Microsoft, of course. Is giving away software illegal? Obviously not, open source is doing it. Is Microsoft trying to compete with open source, yes! This is how Microsoft thinks they can beat open source (it's not but no one said Microsoft is the smartest bunch of people [example iLoo]).
Everyone always assumes that competition is about market share and numbers. It is in an analytical sense but it really boils down to who has the better product. Who decides what the best product is? The consumer. Obviously, Microsoft hasn't been playing on a level playing field but is giving away software wrong... NO!
However, competition is a two way street. When people or companies bid for a government contract it typically goes to the lowest bidder. Microsoft has a lot of contracts with the US government. Obviously, there has been some discounting.
Do bare in mind that these tactics aren't being used in the US. They are being used in the EU though.
I'm not defending Microsoft in any way. But, there is nothing wrong with this. If Microsoft "donates" or "discounts" its products for whatever "spin reason" they want to put on it, it's totally legal. It's dubious, but legal.
Americans typically think, buy American when it comes to tech so going with Microsoft isn't too hard of a decision. But, Australians think buy Australian. So, they want an Australian OS. Which makes perfect sense. Why buy Microsoft and lower your country's GDP when you can save money, get some Aussies on board, and go open source.
Microsoft has numerous dirty tricks. But this barely merits my typical scathing that I give when it comes to Microsoft.
1) The obvious, no matter what... copyright protection will be thwarted in some way, shape, or form.
2) The music industry has no clue what they're doing. How can you create something and then not test it, find the qwirks, and fix them? That is just a bad product. Too bad the bad product is preventing people from using the product that they thought they were purchasing.
3) If Apple PCs aren't supported, then obvious every CD player isn't supported either.
This is a very effective effort being displayed here. It also proves that the Internet can defend itself when needed. It's nice to see that when there truly is a problem in cyberspace geeks, nerds, gurus, and good people can unite and fix the issue.
I also think that posting how to crash the FIZZER's was posted along with what channels they were in. That's like saying, here you go... have fun, don't put anyone's eye out.
So if song lyrics are copywritten, me singing a song (that I've memorized) in the shower is a violation of that copyright?
It seems rather unusual that people would actually pay money just to verify song lyrics (which quite a few on the Internet are wrong). What are the record labels really trying to prove with this one? That they really can rape consumers at will by not only gouging CD prices but charging us for song lyrics too?
I say everyone puts up the lyrics to one song on every site they administer. If 40% of all the web sites in the world have to remove content it might be too daunting of a task for whoever wants to clean this up.
Obviously the RIAA is a HUGE bunch of MORONS. Think about it. If they search for copyright violations and the search term happens to be the name of the person they're accussing shouldn't they look deeper as opposed to laying waste to everything in their path?
Innocent casualties will be the downfall of the RIAA. Counter lawsuits will start stacking up and they won't know what to do with themselves.
This will be a very interesting lawsuit. First of all, it's true that the state of FL has no jurisdiction over an individual in the UK. Second, the UK looks more dimly on spam than the US does (hard to believe, eh?). Third, this lawsuit looks like it will be VERY public. The defendant should be able to call this a slam dunk. No FL judge will probably be high enough to touch this either.
Often times blogs are a great source of information. Factual, accurate information. I imagine that Google has a very select list of blogs it will keep in the main index and move the rest to their own blog search function.
This is good because the mass of content in the exsisting index has become quite diluted. Google has been trying to fix that as of late and it has been quite a headache for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch as wireless networking takes a step back.
I'm glad I saw this earlier because it seems that their site is buckling under the increased hits.
Because GPS often fails.
But, to each his own I guess.
Which license overrules the other?
This is absolutely astonishing that a group of people that have never even cared about anything other than their servers/channels can come together and absolutely annihilate a worm of this magnitude.
I proves that teamwork can accomplish great things regardless of the circumstances.
I bet you're right.
If the RIAA is going to say that they won't go after people and then change directions and then sue Verizon for access to private information about its users then sue four college kids for operating Windows file sharing search engines, why would consumers continue to support the RIAA (an organization that obviously goes back on its own word) by purchasing music or other media from the organizations that support the RIAA?
Also, with the increase of recent anti-spam legislation what will the RIAA do to counteract the "destined to come" lawsuits due to its spamming of P2P networks?
This will be a wonderful display of how "ready" the RIAA is for the public.
You'd be better off subscribing to security mailing lists.
True. But, Pricewatch has a huge name so not submitting to it is silly.
Also, Pricewatch, Pricegrabber and Froogle scour the web for prices and create search engines out of them so consumers can find the best price.
I'm not saying just because everyone else is doing it means you can too (and you might have a slightly different objective causing these examples to be weightless) but it's being done all over the place.
Hope that helps.
Chunnel... they did it there. It would just have to be on a much grander scale.
Sweet. Now where do I put the scanner, printer, and the always attractive gargoyle pencil holder?
Just when I was starting to go one direction with my theories on Google PR the game gets switched. I thought I was going to have the upper hand for once. Oh well. It would be nice to see this happen as a true user service.
"Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?" God I hope so. The world would be better without them now. If they're going to try tactics like the RIAA, they best be careful.
We're not talking about the oil industry, or railroad companies. We're talking about tech in the 21st century. Combining 21st century legal processes with the tech industry makes getting anything accomplished very difficult.
This isn't an "illegal" tactic for another reason (as far as lawyers go). Open source is FREE! Technically speaking (using logic presented to me in two replies thus far) that could be illegal.
So is open source trying to compete with Microsoft, of course. Is giving away software illegal? Obviously not, open source is doing it. Is Microsoft trying to compete with open source, yes! This is how Microsoft thinks they can beat open source (it's not but no one said Microsoft is the smartest bunch of people [example iLoo]).
Everyone always assumes that competition is about market share and numbers. It is in an analytical sense but it really boils down to who has the better product. Who decides what the best product is? The consumer. Obviously, Microsoft hasn't been playing on a level playing field but is giving away software wrong... NO!
However, competition is a two way street. When people or companies bid for a government contract it typically goes to the lowest bidder. Microsoft has a lot of contracts with the US government. Obviously, there has been some discounting.
Do bare in mind that these tactics aren't being used in the US. They are being used in the EU though.
Americans typically think, buy American when it comes to tech so going with Microsoft isn't too hard of a decision. But, Australians think buy Australian. So, they want an Australian OS. Which makes perfect sense. Why buy Microsoft and lower your country's GDP when you can save money, get some Aussies on board, and go open source.
Microsoft has numerous dirty tricks. But this barely merits my typical scathing that I give when it comes to Microsoft.
2) The music industry has no clue what they're doing. How can you create something and then not test it, find the qwirks, and fix them? That is just a bad product. Too bad the bad product is preventing people from using the product that they thought they were purchasing.
3) If Apple PCs aren't supported, then obvious every CD player isn't supported either.
I also think that posting how to crash the FIZZER's was posted along with what channels they were in. That's like saying, here you go... have fun, don't put anyone's eye out.
It seems rather unusual that people would actually pay money just to verify song lyrics (which quite a few on the Internet are wrong). What are the record labels really trying to prove with this one? That they really can rape consumers at will by not only gouging CD prices but charging us for song lyrics too?
I say everyone puts up the lyrics to one song on every site they administer. If 40% of all the web sites in the world have to remove content it might be too daunting of a task for whoever wants to clean this up.
Or... we can just sit back and do nothing...
Does Intel seem to be losing the number game (big numbers in front of MHz or GHz = more sales)? Or is AMD beating Intel at their own game?
Innocent casualties will be the downfall of the RIAA. Counter lawsuits will start stacking up and they won't know what to do with themselves.
This will be a very interesting lawsuit. First of all, it's true that the state of FL has no jurisdiction over an individual in the UK. Second, the UK looks more dimly on spam than the US does (hard to believe, eh?). Third, this lawsuit looks like it will be VERY public. The defendant should be able to call this a slam dunk. No FL judge will probably be high enough to touch this either.
This is good because the mass of content in the exsisting index has become quite diluted. Google has been trying to fix that as of late and it has been quite a headache for them.