Nobody ever told them they couldn't operate at all, just because they advertise. The law just says that they can't install their crap on someone's computer without the user being aware of it and they can't take steps to make their software unnecessarily difficult to uninstall. Going back to the living room example, if you invite me into your living room because I seem like a nice enough guy, but then I get to be too damn annoying and you ask me to leave, I have no constitutional right to stay.
Exactly. If you are part of the "working rich", you are absolutely hosed with taxes. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc pay well over half their income to taxes. But if you are a CEO, or just someone living from the interest of your wealth, there are a lot of ways to reduce your taxes and make your income appear smaller for tax purposes. I'd say this is the biggest difference between rich people who vote democrat and those who vote republican.
Actually, the law in question was designed to in fact prohibit this behavior. Read the summary. Unless there is something in the constitution that specifically prohibits laws like this, the law stands and the scumware company will be out of business where they belong.
So if I come in your living room and start shouting and then you try to kick me out, are my first amendment rights being violated? After all, you have no constitutional right to a quiet living room, just a desire.
If they were less than $10 million for the entire campaign, I would be surprised. Then there's the immesurable loss of goodwill. Furthermore, relying on lawsuits for profits, if the lawsuits ever in fact generate profits, will lull execs into a false sense of security. Rather than innovating and taking online music distribution seriously, they will just do whatever they have to in order to prop up the old system until the very end when they become obsolete. Long term, this is a loser's strategy, no matter how you look at it.
This is a huge problem, as I have seen many of these type of applications myself. Consequently, my company gives everyone administrative access so these apps can run. And of course, we have the accompanying security and configuration nightmares.
I fully agree that software that is designed for the end user should not require administrative rights to run, but this is something that should be planned from the top down. Architects should design software to run with a minimal level of privilege that is necessary for the task at hand. Developers should be informed of this and should know how to code without relying on restricted system functions. Testing and deployment teams should make sure the software can run in the proper environment (platform, user level, compatibility with other apps, etc). If you're leaving it all to the developers to ensure that software runs properly when installed, and if the developers cannot understand these concepts without running locked down PCs, your product is going to fail in the marketplace for this and many other reasons.
Could the recent increase in sales have anything to do with the economic recovery? Sure, not everyone has more money now, but I'd say most people are not as worried about being laid off and those that were laid off in 2001 have probably found new employment by now.
I really don't think too many people are saying to themselves, "Gee, I don't want to get sued for downloading music, better do what I did 3 years ago and pay $20 at the mall for that new Britney Spears album." This business model will thrive for a little bit longer, but when (not if) an alternative comes along, people will abandon the RIAA artists and companies almost overnight. More importantly, aspiring artists will bypass the RIAA labels.
In an office full of non-technical people who just happen to need computers, I agree, lock everything down. However, if you think programmers are going to code more efficiently by not being allowed to install anything, change settings, access the web, etc then you are dreaming. Good luck keeping any talented technical people on staff if you have a standardized corporate wallpaper and no ability to customize software settings. Also, any admin who feels that the only way to secure the system is to not let the users have any control whatsoever over their own machine is clearly incompetent. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of the parent poster, but I have met some admins who simply lock everything down because they don't really know how to secure their network.
The sad thing is, we are oppressing ourselves. If the majority of the people were registered, and most importantly INFORMED voters, politicans simply could not be in the pockets of industry. Campaign contributions can help someone get elected by allowing them to campaign more effectively, but its votes that actually put them in office. Politicians do realize this. If the public is truely outraged about something and a lot of people are complaining to their representatives, they will side with the voters over the moneyed special interests. An example would be the telemarketing laws, passed over the objections of lobbyists because the people demanded them. When the public as a whole wakes up and demands a stop to the recording industry cartel practices, congress will listen.
The reason penis pill scams are hard to shut down is because its the perfect crime. Someone who gets scammed by a penis pill seller will have to 1. admit he bought penis pills on the internet 2. admit he thought that taking a pill would give him an extra few inches 3. show some evidence that the product failed to perform as advertised. Who would really want to do this? Almost anyone in that situation would write off the loss and consider it a learning experience.
In addition to the issues listed here, it is just too much trouble to try to restrict wireless communication. There's no foolproof way to do it without spending a lot of time and money, and even then someone will hack it. For instance, how would you control student access to wireless internet through a cellular provider? Unless there's some really compelling reason to restrict access that the original submitter left out, it seems like much more trouble than its worth.
I've never understood why companies like the one behind Xupiter are not being prosecuted under existing laws. If you install something on someone's machine without telling them, by taking advantage of a browser security hole, then you have committed computer trespass. Why is it legal just because a corporation is doing it? And due to the fact that some of these toolbars are designed to hijack a Google search and redirect it to some fake search engine that is full of advertisements, I am surprised Google hasn't taken action to prevent this obvious restraint of trade.
Also, when it becomes too difficult or impractical to send spam to large amounts of people, spamming will drop off altogether. The success rate is low even now, and when spammers face the realistic possibility of prosecution, they will probably decide its not worth it and go back to writing bad checks or whatever they used to do to make money.
As you pointed out, spyware companies can certainly word their installation screens and agreements to get around many spyware laws, but I think the most important provision of a spyware law would be the one saying that it is illegal to create self replicating software that was intentionally designed to be difficult to uninstall. That would get rid of the most damaging kinds of spyware, or at least make their creators responsible for the costs of cleaning up infected systems. I would, however, be curious to see what effect a law like this would have on some of the uninstallable Microsoft OS patches and even some of the software (try uninstalling the.net framework).
This is not always such a bad thing, as the average slashdotter knows more about computers than every news reporter in the U.S. combined will ever know about them. I just love it when I hear some clueless news reader talking about the newest virus that could "break your internet" and recommends users protect themselves by deleting all email.
If you think that's bad, check out Chicago's Soldier Field expansion. When all the cost overruns were calculated, taxpayers spent nearly a billion dollars for a stadium to benefit one private corporation, the forever-losing Chicago Bears. People here are completely immune to the effects of corruption, or so it seems. There was public outrage, but no officials lost their jobs over it.
You could introduce this proposal as the "Full disclosure in government" law. Since this is pretty much how it happens, and there's little that can be done to prevent it, might as well make it official.
Call me an asshole if you wish, but I do not consider it my responsibility to buy computers for your wife's school. If your local politicians are inept or they just don't value education, your schools will suffer for it. That's just life. Gated community or not, the people must decide they value education and elect a government that values it too. If your city or county cannot do that, don't come whining to the federal government nanny to make up for local incompetence. Yes, I know, think about the children, bla bla bla.
Given a choice between paying for the fraud and waste in my local government and paying for Wanker County, Oklahoma's fraud and waste, I'd rather keep it local. At least I could vote against the people who were responsible. And if the citizens of a certain area, such as Chicago, are OK with government waste, that's their business. Besides, in this country we have this thing called a constitution, which limits federal power. Yes, this has been massively abused already, but I'd rather minimize federal taxes going to pay for things the feds were never intended to regulate.
I'll keep this in mind when I get my next phone bill and notice the 30% taxes added on to it. At least half of that is the "Gore Tax", which was put to such great use as we see. Now that almost all American public schools have their intarweb installed, I see no reason to continue this financial rape of the public. This program should be phased out, since it has clearly outlived its usefulness. It's nothing less than irresponsible to suggest that a federal tax be used to pay the monthly internet bills for schools and libraries (neither of which are supposed to be federally controlled to begin with).
Obviously a lot of people have bought this album, and no doubt a lot of people will want to transfer songs to an iPod or other player and will find out the hard way that they can't. This will get the public's attention on the issue of copy protected CDs. I suspect that most people will not buy another one, having been burned once before. If these prove to be unpopular enough in the long run, they will probably not be sold anymore. Hopefully, there will be a future story about a band's album having very disappointing sales due to copy protection.
Wouldn't pure capitalism mean no (or very few) restrictions on corporate power? At the same time, it would mean no trade barriers or subsidies, I would think.
And your point has been well proven by the fact that your post was modded Troll, which is what happens on slashdot when you criticise European countries for their sometimes anti-freedom stances. Now if you had said that the United States (GW Bush especially) is eroding freedoms worldwide, you would have gotten a +5 Informative. The United States has actually created some of the least amount of restrictions on what its citizens can do on the web, except for the poorly conceived, unconstitutional, and ultimately struck-down Communications Decency Act.
Yes, but it makes people feel good to recycle, like they are doing something to solve a problem. For this reason, recycling will continue regardless of the lack of real benefits and high cost. Notice the parent post (and probably this one) has a Troll rating, which proves just how emotional some people get over environmental issues. To them, the facts have little importance, as long as they have something to feel good about.
This is what will happen in countries where the cost of domestic labor is much greater than the cost of manufacturing, which is done either in lower wage countries or in mostly automated facilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody ever told them they couldn't operate at all, just because they advertise. The law just says that they can't install their crap on someone's computer without the user being aware of it and they can't take steps to make their software unnecessarily difficult to uninstall. Going back to the living room example, if you invite me into your living room because I seem like a nice enough guy, but then I get to be too damn annoying and you ask me to leave, I have no constitutional right to stay.
Exactly. If you are part of the "working rich", you are absolutely hosed with taxes. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc pay well over half their income to taxes. But if you are a CEO, or just someone living from the interest of your wealth, there are a lot of ways to reduce your taxes and make your income appear smaller for tax purposes. I'd say this is the biggest difference between rich people who vote democrat and those who vote republican.
Actually, the law in question was designed to in fact prohibit this behavior. Read the summary. Unless there is something in the constitution that specifically prohibits laws like this, the law stands and the scumware company will be out of business where they belong.
So if I come in your living room and start shouting and then you try to kick me out, are my first amendment rights being violated? After all, you have no constitutional right to a quiet living room, just a desire.
If they were less than $10 million for the entire campaign, I would be surprised. Then there's the immesurable loss of goodwill. Furthermore, relying on lawsuits for profits, if the lawsuits ever in fact generate profits, will lull execs into a false sense of security. Rather than innovating and taking online music distribution seriously, they will just do whatever they have to in order to prop up the old system until the very end when they become obsolete. Long term, this is a loser's strategy, no matter how you look at it.
This is a huge problem, as I have seen many of these type of applications myself. Consequently, my company gives everyone administrative access so these apps can run. And of course, we have the accompanying security and configuration nightmares.
I fully agree that software that is designed for the end user should not require administrative rights to run, but this is something that should be planned from the top down. Architects should design software to run with a minimal level of privilege that is necessary for the task at hand. Developers should be informed of this and should know how to code without relying on restricted system functions. Testing and deployment teams should make sure the software can run in the proper environment (platform, user level, compatibility with other apps, etc). If you're leaving it all to the developers to ensure that software runs properly when installed, and if the developers cannot understand these concepts without running locked down PCs, your product is going to fail in the marketplace for this and many other reasons.
Could the recent increase in sales have anything to do with the economic recovery? Sure, not everyone has more money now, but I'd say most people are not as worried about being laid off and those that were laid off in 2001 have probably found new employment by now.
I really don't think too many people are saying to themselves, "Gee, I don't want to get sued for downloading music, better do what I did 3 years ago and pay $20 at the mall for that new Britney Spears album." This business model will thrive for a little bit longer, but when (not if) an alternative comes along, people will abandon the RIAA artists and companies almost overnight. More importantly, aspiring artists will bypass the RIAA labels.
In an office full of non-technical people who just happen to need computers, I agree, lock everything down. However, if you think programmers are going to code more efficiently by not being allowed to install anything, change settings, access the web, etc then you are dreaming. Good luck keeping any talented technical people on staff if you have a standardized corporate wallpaper and no ability to customize software settings. Also, any admin who feels that the only way to secure the system is to not let the users have any control whatsoever over their own machine is clearly incompetent. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of the parent poster, but I have met some admins who simply lock everything down because they don't really know how to secure their network.
The sad thing is, we are oppressing ourselves. If the majority of the people were registered, and most importantly INFORMED voters, politicans simply could not be in the pockets of industry. Campaign contributions can help someone get elected by allowing them to campaign more effectively, but its votes that actually put them in office. Politicians do realize this. If the public is truely outraged about something and a lot of people are complaining to their representatives, they will side with the voters over the moneyed special interests. An example would be the telemarketing laws, passed over the objections of lobbyists because the people demanded them. When the public as a whole wakes up and demands a stop to the recording industry cartel practices, congress will listen.
The reason penis pill scams are hard to shut down is because its the perfect crime. Someone who gets scammed by a penis pill seller will have to 1. admit he bought penis pills on the internet 2. admit he thought that taking a pill would give him an extra few inches 3. show some evidence that the product failed to perform as advertised. Who would really want to do this? Almost anyone in that situation would write off the loss and consider it a learning experience.
In addition to the issues listed here, it is just too much trouble to try to restrict wireless communication. There's no foolproof way to do it without spending a lot of time and money, and even then someone will hack it. For instance, how would you control student access to wireless internet through a cellular provider? Unless there's some really compelling reason to restrict access that the original submitter left out, it seems like much more trouble than its worth.
I've never understood why companies like the one behind Xupiter are not being prosecuted under existing laws. If you install something on someone's machine without telling them, by taking advantage of a browser security hole, then you have committed computer trespass. Why is it legal just because a corporation is doing it? And due to the fact that some of these toolbars are designed to hijack a Google search and redirect it to some fake search engine that is full of advertisements, I am surprised Google hasn't taken action to prevent this obvious restraint of trade.
Also, when it becomes too difficult or impractical to send spam to large amounts of people, spamming will drop off altogether. The success rate is low even now, and when spammers face the realistic possibility of prosecution, they will probably decide its not worth it and go back to writing bad checks or whatever they used to do to make money.
As you pointed out, spyware companies can certainly word their installation screens and agreements to get around many spyware laws, but I think the most important provision of a spyware law would be the one saying that it is illegal to create self replicating software that was intentionally designed to be difficult to uninstall. That would get rid of the most damaging kinds of spyware, or at least make their creators responsible for the costs of cleaning up infected systems. I would, however, be curious to see what effect a law like this would have on some of the uninstallable Microsoft OS patches and even some of the software (try uninstalling the .net framework).
This is not always such a bad thing, as the average slashdotter knows more about computers than every news reporter in the U.S. combined will ever know about them. I just love it when I hear some clueless news reader talking about the newest virus that could "break your internet" and recommends users protect themselves by deleting all email.
If you think that's bad, check out Chicago's Soldier Field expansion. When all the cost overruns were calculated, taxpayers spent nearly a billion dollars for a stadium to benefit one private corporation, the forever-losing Chicago Bears. People here are completely immune to the effects of corruption, or so it seems. There was public outrage, but no officials lost their jobs over it.
You could introduce this proposal as the "Full disclosure in government" law. Since this is pretty much how it happens, and there's little that can be done to prevent it, might as well make it official.
Call me an asshole if you wish, but I do not consider it my responsibility to buy computers for your wife's school. If your local politicians are inept or they just don't value education, your schools will suffer for it. That's just life. Gated community or not, the people must decide they value education and elect a government that values it too. If your city or county cannot do that, don't come whining to the federal government nanny to make up for local incompetence. Yes, I know, think about the children, bla bla bla.
Given a choice between paying for the fraud and waste in my local government and paying for Wanker County, Oklahoma's fraud and waste, I'd rather keep it local. At least I could vote against the people who were responsible. And if the citizens of a certain area, such as Chicago, are OK with government waste, that's their business. Besides, in this country we have this thing called a constitution, which limits federal power. Yes, this has been massively abused already, but I'd rather minimize federal taxes going to pay for things the feds were never intended to regulate.
I'll keep this in mind when I get my next phone bill and notice the 30% taxes added on to it. At least half of that is the "Gore Tax", which was put to such great use as we see. Now that almost all American public schools have their intarweb installed, I see no reason to continue this financial rape of the public. This program should be phased out, since it has clearly outlived its usefulness. It's nothing less than irresponsible to suggest that a federal tax be used to pay the monthly internet bills for schools and libraries (neither of which are supposed to be federally controlled to begin with).
Obviously a lot of people have bought this album, and no doubt a lot of people will want to transfer songs to an iPod or other player and will find out the hard way that they can't. This will get the public's attention on the issue of copy protected CDs. I suspect that most people will not buy another one, having been burned once before. If these prove to be unpopular enough in the long run, they will probably not be sold anymore. Hopefully, there will be a future story about a band's album having very disappointing sales due to copy protection.
Wouldn't pure capitalism mean no (or very few) restrictions on corporate power? At the same time, it would mean no trade barriers or subsidies, I would think.
And your point has been well proven by the fact that your post was modded Troll, which is what happens on slashdot when you criticise European countries for their sometimes anti-freedom stances. Now if you had said that the United States (GW Bush especially) is eroding freedoms worldwide, you would have gotten a +5 Informative. The United States has actually created some of the least amount of restrictions on what its citizens can do on the web, except for the poorly conceived, unconstitutional, and ultimately struck-down Communications Decency Act.
Yes, but it makes people feel good to recycle, like they are doing something to solve a problem. For this reason, recycling will continue regardless of the lack of real benefits and high cost. Notice the parent post (and probably this one) has a Troll rating, which proves just how emotional some people get over environmental issues. To them, the facts have little importance, as long as they have something to feel good about.
This is what will happen in countries where the cost of domestic labor is much greater than the cost of manufacturing, which is done either in lower wage countries or in mostly automated facilities.