I don't think they are trying to stop criticism but rather dumb, pathetic, numbskulled comments like "(insert game name here) sucks."
It doesn't matter what kind of comment they're trying to stop - it's still unconstitutional (unless the comment is libelous [written] or slanderous [spoken], and that's pretty damn hard to prove).
The Bill of Rights applies to both reasoned, intelligent criticism and dumb, numbskull criticism. It's too bad the authors of UCITA didn't recognize that fact - now their law is going to end up in the toilet.
"That story is really misleading - and an attempt, accurate or not, to focus on technologies such as Napster for the loss of sales. It reeks of being a 'study' set up for Exhibit A in a lawsuit."
I doubt this thing would ever pop up in court as a piece of evidence. It would be torn apart pretty quickly (just look at how little time it took Slashdot users!).
While it is a hideous study unfit for any trial, it is unfortunately an effective piece of propaganda for the RIAA and Napster foes. That's why it out there - no other reason.
If I was Napster, I'd quickly put out a detailed refutation of the study's "findings". They need to get something out in today's or tomorrow's news cycle to combat the negative effects.
Sorry, but the proposal that I think you're speaking of is not a good thing - and penthouse.com, ironically, has proven that it isn't necessary.
It sounds like you're referencing the Public Policy Institute's proposal that organizations like Napster should be required to obtain personal information (name, credit card #, other stuff) about users before they are able to use the program. This goes against the nature of the Internet, e.g. anonymity if desired, free expression and participation, etc. This proposal is clearly designed to subject users to onerous monitoring by large corporations with even larger legal budgets. Penthouse.com, on the other hand, was able to stop wholesale theft of their property against Maud'Dib by closely watching his actions, and unmasking his anonymity, probably through IP information or some other means. The point is, they went out and looked for his identity, they didn't have it handed to them. Once they got Maud'Dib, they announced that he was caught and warned other users that they were ready to act on other violations as well. They did it once, they did it in a responsible manner, and they did it successfully. The people who are whining now are just pissed because they can't get their Penthouse porn for free.
It is also useful to contrast Penthouse's actions with Metallica's. Penthouse went after a few people after confirming that massive copyright violations were being committed by those persons; Metallica sloppily accused 300K+ Napster users of copyright violations without clear and convincing proof to that end (are filenames what they say they are?). Penthouse aimed to stop near real-time illegal distribution of their material; Metallica has stated (or at least heavily implied) that the aim of their actions against Napster users is to shut Napster down. The two cases seem to be very different.
Which is exactly why the movie rental companies will make sure this fails. It's a little known truth that rental companies make a great deal of their money off of late fees - I've even heard that late fees bring in more money than the original rental charges themselves in some areas. The stores aren't going to be happy that a major revenue stream is being eliminated.
Funny you should mention ballparks. That's where the technology first got noticed by media reporters. It actually started a while back (last summer, I think) - broadcasters began putting virtual billboards to the left and right of the catcher at baseball games. The actual fans in the stands couldn't see them, but the TV audiences could. More importantly, everybody who watched highlight tapes on Sportscenter later that night saw them too. I think that the replays are more valuable to the advertisers than the live broadcast.
A couple of additional thoughts: 1) Virtual advertising is probably the best way to go for events like soccer (football) matches, which has a lot fewer breaks than US football or baseball. 2) Will ad rates begin to be determined post event? For example say some company bought the virtual billboard space while Mark McGwire was up to bat, and he hits a grand slam. Consequently, that ad gets replayed ad naseum both in replays and highlight reels later that night. Does the company pay more for that additional coverage?
Ideally, yes, it would be difficult to get a warrant to search your personal belongings and property. Ideally, an officer would have to face a judge committeed to protecting the rights of an innocent person, a judge who would require significant evidence of wrongdoing before allowing a search. But in reality, judges aren't perfect - some don't give two s***t aboout your right to privacy. And worst of all, some just want to get the pesky oficer out of their chambers so they can go back to sleep. The other troubling aspect about this plan is that it would be done in secret. At least with the warrant situation as it stands now, searchees most of the time know what's going on. That wouldn't happen here. This is part of a comtinued effort by national security forces on the Hill and in some bureaus of the administration to defeat the SAFE act and other encryption reform. They're taking a very aggressive approach, in part because the momentum of encryption reform scares them. And finally, I will turn into a policy schill for a moment and ask everyone to speak up to the U.S. House on this issue. The SAFE act will be on the House floor next month - call your rep and ask if they're a co-sponsor of the SAFE act of not. Then berate or praise them accordingly. The Americans for Computer Privacy website (http://www.computerprivacy.org) can give you more info. And my apologies if the above paragraph was inappropriate. I'm new to this thing. -looieprima
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for sharing, Carly.
It doesn't matter what kind of comment they're trying to stop - it's still unconstitutional (unless the comment is libelous [written] or slanderous [spoken], and that's pretty damn hard to prove).
The Bill of Rights applies to both reasoned, intelligent criticism and dumb, numbskull criticism. It's too bad the authors of UCITA didn't recognize that fact - now their law is going to end up in the toilet.
http://www.mo vingcenter.com/mc.dll?page=salarycalculator&partne r=apts
You can also get to the site by going to apartments.com and clicking on the "salary calculator" link on the left hand menu bar.
"That story is really misleading - and an attempt, accurate or not, to focus on technologies such as Napster for the loss of sales. It reeks of being a 'study' set up for Exhibit A in a lawsuit."
I doubt this thing would ever pop up in court as a piece of evidence. It would be torn apart pretty quickly (just look at how little time it took Slashdot users!).
While it is a hideous study unfit for any trial, it is unfortunately an effective piece of propaganda for the RIAA and Napster foes. That's why it out there - no other reason.
If I was Napster, I'd quickly put out a detailed refutation of the study's "findings". They need to get something out in today's or tomorrow's news cycle to combat the negative effects.
Sorry, but the proposal that I think you're speaking of is not a good thing - and penthouse.com, ironically, has proven that it isn't necessary.
It sounds like you're referencing the Public Policy Institute's proposal that organizations like Napster should be required to obtain personal information (name, credit card #, other stuff) about users before they are able to use the program. This goes against the nature of the Internet, e.g. anonymity if desired, free expression and participation, etc. This proposal is clearly designed to subject users to onerous monitoring by large corporations with even larger legal budgets. Penthouse.com, on the other hand, was able to stop wholesale theft of their property against Maud'Dib by closely watching his actions, and unmasking his anonymity, probably through IP information or some other means. The point is, they went out and looked for his identity, they didn't have it handed to them. Once they got Maud'Dib, they announced that he was caught and warned other users that they were ready to act on other violations as well. They did it once, they did it in a responsible manner, and they did it successfully. The people who are whining now are just pissed because they can't get their Penthouse porn for free.
It is also useful to contrast Penthouse's actions with Metallica's. Penthouse went after a few people after confirming that massive copyright violations were being committed by those persons; Metallica sloppily accused 300K+ Napster users of copyright violations without clear and convincing proof to that end (are filenames what they say they are?). Penthouse aimed to stop near real-time illegal distribution of their material; Metallica has stated (or at least heavily implied) that the aim of their actions against Napster users is to shut Napster down. The two cases seem to be very different.
No more late fees,
Which is exactly why the movie rental companies will make sure this fails. It's a little known truth that rental companies make a great deal of their money off of late fees - I've even heard that late fees bring in more money than the original rental charges themselves in some areas. The stores aren't going to be happy that a major revenue stream is being eliminated.
A couple of additional thoughts: 1) Virtual advertising is probably the best way to go for events like soccer (football) matches, which has a lot fewer breaks than US football or baseball. 2) Will ad rates begin to be determined post event? For example say some company bought the virtual billboard space while Mark McGwire was up to bat, and he hits a grand slam. Consequently, that ad gets replayed ad naseum both in replays and highlight reels later that night. Does the company pay more for that additional coverage?
Sorry so long, BTW... looieprima
"What's this guy gonna tell job interviewers in the future... 'it was just an mp3 server?'"
Yep. And then they'll hire him because he knows more about computers than they do... at some places they'll have to ask him what a server is.
- looieprima
Ideally, yes, it would be difficult to get a warrant to search your personal belongings and property. Ideally, an officer would have to face a judge committeed to protecting the rights of an innocent person, a judge who would require significant evidence of wrongdoing before allowing a search. But in reality, judges aren't perfect - some don't give two s***t aboout your right to privacy. And worst of all, some just want to get the pesky oficer out of their chambers so they can go back to sleep. The other troubling aspect about this plan is that it would be done in secret. At least with the warrant situation as it stands now, searchees most of the time know what's going on. That wouldn't happen here. This is part of a comtinued effort by national security forces on the Hill and in some bureaus of the administration to defeat the SAFE act and other encryption reform. They're taking a very aggressive approach, in part because the momentum of encryption reform scares them. And finally, I will turn into a policy schill for a moment and ask everyone to speak up to the U.S. House on this issue. The SAFE act will be on the House floor next month - call your rep and ask if they're a co-sponsor of the SAFE act of not. Then berate or praise them accordingly. The Americans for Computer Privacy website (http://www.computerprivacy.org) can give you more info. And my apologies if the above paragraph was inappropriate. I'm new to this thing. -looieprima