I think this will all be worth it when all the companies who signed on to this bright idea get flooded with calls from irate customers complaining that their USB 2 device (which is really USB 2) isn't compatable with the USB 2 ports on their computer (which is really USB 1.1), and they wind up having to explain to the general public that they were defrauding us of the technology we've been demanding.
The problem with this strategy (if that's what it is) is that the vast majority of people who hear these statements are aware of or don't understand "his game." The inevitable result of this is that regardless of whether IT companies actually make any progress in solving the piracy problem, he's going to lose an obscene number of votes for threatening the people's right to private property and due process. Even he would have to be aware that a stunt like this could cost him an election.
No, I think this is pent-up rage leeking out of a crotchity old man, mumbling about the "good old days" where there's wasn't any such thing as this newfangled interweb, and when you wanted to pirate your friend's record you had to cut a sheet of blank vinyl and cut the grooves in with a toothpick. I somehow doubt he even has the backing of the media conglomerates that were previously noted to contribute to his campaign, as this would be something we call "bad PR."
Re:Hasn't really been a problem
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's worth noting that (at least according to the Jargon File) caffeine bonds to the same neural receptors as Ritalin. That may or may not have something to do with why coffee helps soothe your ADHD.
See, a search engine searches files publicly available on a network. If a file isn't accessible by the public (at least the part of the public that would be using the search engine, in this case the folks at RPI), it's not going to be found by the search engine. This means two things: 1) everything available to search with ChewPlastic was intentionally made available for public access at some prior point (i.e. published), and 2) nothing on ChewPlastic would be impossible to find by other means.
Now, if ChewPlastic was finding files that weren't made publicly available on the network, I think there'd be bigger legal problems with the search engine than contributory infringment.
And not to be personal about it or anything, but god, you've got some major irrational hatred for this kid and everything he stands for, huh?
Simply because a system allows piracy doesn't mean its creator is complicit in acts of piracy. You noted yourself that the search engine the kid wrote had substantial non-infringing uses: the sharing of personal and academic materials like notes and presentations.
We have this little legal precendent called the Betamax decision that says that an entity that creates a system with substantial legal uses (like photocopiers or VCRs) can't be held responsible if people use that system for piracy. Jordan created a system to make materials on his college's network easier to find; what people have on the network for the engine to find and what people search for aren't his responsibilities.
Finally, just so you know, just because Google only searches for web pages (and potentially copyrighted images, you forgot that) doesn't mean that I can't use it to find all kinds of illegal copyrighted files. The web is just full of pages with links to pirated material--not being able to search for the files directly hardly impedes my search at all, in the long run.
Ideally, the individual in question would have learned what's right and what's wrong at a younger age, when the law still granted that individual the freedom to make mistakes without serious consequences. But this guy was an adult, and that means he was supposed to be responsible. That means he was supposed to know right from wrong. So when he did something wrong, he was treated like an adult.
This kid wrote a standard search engine for his college campus. Not a P2P service, not an MP3 index, just a standard network crawler along the lines of Google. The RIAA sued him because the search engine could be used to search for pirated material and therefore facilitate piracy. Despite the fact that the case didn't have a leg to stand on, the kid couldn't afford a protracted court battle, so he settled out of court for his entire life savings (US$12000). The case was about as rational as suing Google for facilitating piracy, but Google has money to fund a legal team, while college students don't. Basically, the RIAA sued an innocent college student simply because they knew they could get away with it. That's unethical, no two ways about it.
Woah, woah, wait.
Okay, first off we have Lessig saying the following (page 3):
"P2P technologies can be used for totally legal purposes, even if they are also used for illegal purposes. Indeed, as they develop, the vast majority of uses of P2P technology will be legal. As the Supreme Court has rightly held, a technology is not illegal if it is capable of 'substantial noninfringing uses.' Every P2P technology that I have seen satisfies this test."
To which this RIAA dude Oppenheim replies, "AMEN!!", as though agreeing with Lessig rather vehemently that P2P services are legal. Then, of couse, later on Oppenheim says the following (page 9):
"And, when you rip the CD, you do not open up your computer to all of the spyware and other viruses that are part and parcel of most
illegal P2P services."
So now, P2P services are legal again? What this says to me is that either he didn't understand what Lessig was saying in the first place (which I can believe, since judging by this guy's responses he's an idiot); or he's trying to play up to us and make everyone think the RIAA is really quite reasonable, but he can't get rid of that nervous tic that makes him mutter "P2P = devil" all the time.
Does anyone else notice that the RIAA's only suing people too poor to hire a lawyer to act in their defense? Personally, I think the next person that gets sued like this should just set up a PayPal account and get their case posted on Slashdot. I doubt they'd have to pay a cent.
Well, no, you don't technically need any high end processors, hard drives, etc. to connect to a college network, and no, they probably won't call you on it if you bring some ten-year-old relic, so long as you don't bring tech support's attention to it. However, such high arbitrary "requirements" do provide a convenient excuse to buy one kickass Alienware rig. And I do love my Alienware rigs.
Screw it, buy the biggest, baddest Alienware you can afford. Anyone can run a compiler, but you my friend will be able to do it while burning a CD and playing Half-Life 2 at 60 FPS.
The problem with this is that a lot of universities (Virginia Tech, for one) have a minimum computer requirement that no minimalist Linux box like the one you're describing can ever hope to run. I mention Tech in particular because (besides the fact that I'll be attending there in the fall) their minimum specs are impressively middle-of-the-line: 2GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 40GB HD, DVD-ROM, and so forth. In other words, something that could run the likes of UT2003 without breaking a sweat.
In any case, self-control is a much better method of controlling your gaming habits than just buying a frustratingly dated computer. Any gamer set on gaming is going to game no matter what kind of hardware he has access to, so there's no sense limiting yourself to a machine that only runs five-year-old games. If you really need something to distract you from your computer besides your $80,000 education, there are plenty of other activities at college, and it would take a sociopath or a quadriplegic to avoid all of them.
Gates proposed federal legislation to create incentives for e-mail marketers to adopt best practices and a certification system to identify "trusted senders."
This would of course work exactly like MS's idea for "trusted computing," where you pay Bill Gates three hundred dollars and he uses your computer to fuel his machivellian machinations.
This e'er-so-accurate brought to you buy a magazine that thrives on pop-celebrity gossip, and a TV channel that tries to sell gaming as a "lifestyle brand."
Doesn't get much more hardcore than that, nope.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I was of the impression Ulrich always comes off as whiny.
I think this will all be worth it when all the companies who signed on to this bright idea get flooded with calls from irate customers complaining that their USB 2 device (which is really USB 2) isn't compatable with the USB 2 ports on their computer (which is really USB 1.1), and they wind up having to explain to the general public that they were defrauding us of the technology we've been demanding.
No, I think this is pent-up rage leeking out of a crotchity old man, mumbling about the "good old days" where there's wasn't any such thing as this newfangled interweb, and when you wanted to pirate your friend's record you had to cut a sheet of blank vinyl and cut the grooves in with a toothpick. I somehow doubt he even has the backing of the media conglomerates that were previously noted to contribute to his campaign, as this would be something we call "bad PR."
It's worth noting that (at least according to the Jargon File) caffeine bonds to the same neural receptors as Ritalin. That may or may not have something to do with why coffee helps soothe your ADHD.
See, a search engine searches files publicly available on a network. If a file isn't accessible by the public (at least the part of the public that would be using the search engine, in this case the folks at RPI), it's not going to be found by the search engine. This means two things: 1) everything available to search with ChewPlastic was intentionally made available for public access at some prior point (i.e. published), and 2) nothing on ChewPlastic would be impossible to find by other means.
Now, if ChewPlastic was finding files that weren't made publicly available on the network, I think there'd be bigger legal problems with the search engine than contributory infringment.
And not to be personal about it or anything, but god, you've got some major irrational hatred for this kid and everything he stands for, huh?
We have this little legal precendent called the Betamax decision that says that an entity that creates a system with substantial legal uses (like photocopiers or VCRs) can't be held responsible if people use that system for piracy. Jordan created a system to make materials on his college's network easier to find; what people have on the network for the engine to find and what people search for aren't his responsibilities.
Finally, just so you know, just because Google only searches for web pages (and potentially copyrighted images, you forgot that) doesn't mean that I can't use it to find all kinds of illegal copyrighted files. The web is just full of pages with links to pirated material--not being able to search for the files directly hardly impedes my search at all, in the long run.
This kid wrote a standard search engine for his college campus. Not a P2P service, not an MP3 index, just a standard network crawler along the lines of Google. The RIAA sued him because the search engine could be used to search for pirated material and therefore facilitate piracy. Despite the fact that the case didn't have a leg to stand on, the kid couldn't afford a protracted court battle, so he settled out of court for his entire life savings (US$12000). The case was about as rational as suing Google for facilitating piracy, but Google has money to fund a legal team, while college students don't. Basically, the RIAA sued an innocent college student simply because they knew they could get away with it. That's unethical, no two ways about it.
Does anyone else notice that the RIAA's only suing people too poor to hire a lawyer to act in their defense? Personally, I think the next person that gets sued like this should just set up a PayPal account and get their case posted on Slashdot. I doubt they'd have to pay a cent.
Well, no, you don't technically need any high end processors, hard drives, etc. to connect to a college network, and no, they probably won't call you on it if you bring some ten-year-old relic, so long as you don't bring tech support's attention to it. However, such high arbitrary "requirements" do provide a convenient excuse to buy one kickass Alienware rig. And I do love my Alienware rigs.
Screw it, buy the biggest, baddest Alienware you can afford. Anyone can run a compiler, but you my friend will be able to do it while burning a CD and playing Half-Life 2 at 60 FPS.
In any case, self-control is a much better method of controlling your gaming habits than just buying a frustratingly dated computer. Any gamer set on gaming is going to game no matter what kind of hardware he has access to, so there's no sense limiting yourself to a machine that only runs five-year-old games. If you really need something to distract you from your computer besides your $80,000 education, there are plenty of other activities at college, and it would take a sociopath or a quadriplegic to avoid all of them.
This is nothing but an elaborate scheme by Sony meant to force me to refer to the old PlayStation as "PSOne."
a) The Nintendo Option: Miyamoto, Zelda, handheld monopoly.
b) The Square Option: Hehe, boobies.
This e'er-so-accurate brought to you buy a magazine that thrives on pop-celebrity gossip, and a TV channel that tries to sell gaming as a "lifestyle brand." Doesn't get much more hardcore than that, nope.
Says the RIAA executive: "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"