It makes one wonder all of the potential abuses of this law. Since Patents are considered "Intellectual Property", would it be much of a stretch to assume that this law would grant "self help" to those looking to squash patent violators? Microsoft, for example, could probably argue that they can "help" themselves squash patent violators by attacking users of Linux, or OpenOffice (Not that I know of any specific violations in either of these two, but that's the danger of extralegal enforcement; it's shoot first, ask questions later. Only if they are caught are there any problems.), or any number of other technologies. Makes me wonder if the RIAA/MPAA would try to get anything under the radar in this bill. (By trying to argue that extralegal attacks on various networks are legal because they stunt "other illegal activities" performed by software.)
I've always wondered this. The current DMCA, AFAIK, makes breaking encryption a questionable prospect, at best (unless you have permission from the encryption designers). Why should this even be protected? Shouldn't we just encourage people to use stronger encryption that isn't as easily circumvented (in effect, why are we legislating that the use of "weak" encryption is okay)?
Personally, I think the encryption itself should be the deterrent to the circumvention of the encryption, not legislation.
If we can break the encryption, too bad; use something besides Fisher Price's "My First Encryption Algorithm" next time.
The core of the problem with net neutrality is, as I see it, a confusion of roles from the telecoms (TC). On a basic level, the _only_ thing (that I am personally interested in), is a connection to global Internet. Network Neutrality issues arise when the TC begins to provide non-connectivity based services (they starting thinking that they are an ISP (which is natural, due to vertical integration)). The entire point of paying telecoms for an internet connection is to achieve nothing but a connection (NON-BIASED routing included) to the network they were payed by the government to produce! That is it. Beginning, Middle, and End. When these connection-based providers start believing that they are the ones responsible to provide the services the internet runs on is when we run into issues. Thus, I present the following:
1) Since the telecoms are a government granted monopoly, it should be 100% possible to buy, without any "independent bandwidth rates" or other garbage, a connection (where connection means that I can route traffic to/from the internet) with absolutely no other services associated with it. By independent connection fees, I mean that it should not be possible for the local TC to charge $20 for a 1.5m/256k line to an arbitrary group (probably some subsidiary or something), and make everyone else pay $200 for the same connection. In short, I am paying for the CONNECTION, at a set rate, and nothing else. Everyone else pays the same rate (no favoritism here). 2) Telecoms are responsible for non-biased routing. Non-biased meaning "without regard to source, destination, or content type." This does NOT make QoS impossible (relative importance of traffic). Violation of this policy is cause for serious fines and/or termination business license. 3) Purchasing of a independent connection. 4) Overall bandwidth throttling is still allowed, within reason. *) Total download bandwidth restrictions (ex. You can only download 5 GB of data a month) should be severely restricted or completely outlawed. (The last two are not directly related to Net Neutrality, I know, but might as well be complete)
What do we gain from this? 1) Legally removes the coupling between the connection provider and the ISP (via non-biased routing), thus removing the problem with shutting off one ser 2) Fosters free market development of ISPs on a local level (the ISP becomes little more than, well, the Internet Service Provider. (DNS, Email, Webhosting). If you do not like any of the ISPs on your market, well, you can make your own! 3) Writes into law that biased routing will not be tolerated! We, the people, payed for the development, deployment, and are paying for the maintenance of these lines. Your sole existence is to maintain and upgrade the system. Period.
Potential problems with the above: The physical connection being ran to the house. Watch out for: "Well, you can get your own independent connection, but it will cost you $100,000 to initially run to your residence if you don't get it in our in-house ISP's 10 year contract!" Unless government regulation is placed on the cost of the actual connection being ran to the residence (or, optionally, having the government subsidize the connection itself), I fear this would be the next step in TC extortion.
And just on a side note, the very idea that Net Neutrality will stifle innovation is a laugh. Lets think about this; you can either make big corporations be the only game in town, or let _anyone_ be a potential game in town. Which sounds a bit more like it could stifle any potential innovations?
Lets see... Refusal to work with public standards/insistence on being the "creator" of everything:
OpenXML vs. OpenDocument (an already established standard)
Direct3D vs. OpenGL (once again, already established standard) Digital "Rights" Management support Windows Activation Support of Software Patents Security Problems The "Reformat and Reinstall" cycle Platform Lock-in - A single powerful platform equates to a single platform that the majority of applications are developed for, which results in an even more powerful single platform. (PC Games are a great example of this). Not that a single powerful platform is a bad thing; it is just that the single power platform shouldn't be controlled by a single company! (*cough* GNU/Linux *cough*) The EULA
Granted, Microsoft has been trying to play a bit "nicer" lately (opening up a free version of Visual Studio, for example).
"In Leathers v. Medlock (1991), the Supreme Court found that states may treat different types of the media differently, such as by taxing cable television, but not newspapers"
Last I checked, Video Games != newspapers (or the press, as stated in the first amendment).
And this is wise, how? I mean, if the government wants this to be more than just a sit in the books law, then they are going to have to spend money (which california is already in desparate lack) finding these so-called criminals, assuming these people are going to even give their emails. Considering that the RIAA already threatend to sue anyone caught downloading music, you think that people would stop downloading it, but it doesn't seem to stop that many people...
Besides, we need to look at the scope of this law anyway. Does this mean that windows file sharing by the dumb user who happens to have a public IP is going to be illegal? Is it going to be illegal to have your own internet site without supplying your email address in plain view for spammers? Etc.
People just need to face it. Unless the nature of the internet changes, it is damned near impossible to regulate.
"require and email address for people who share files" --- and this is going to deter people from sharing files more than a threat to sue? Seriously, if anyone could implement this, it would be a cakewalk. But, alas, anyone that has half a clue when it comes to networking soon realizes that it is dang near impossible to track down an IP to an exact geographic location, let alone find enough evidence to prove the traffic came from that particular address.
I think that most of us are forgetting some of the major arguments to this issue. It isn't so much that windows is released with flaws, it is that they cannot release enough support patches to fix those flaws. The beauty of linux is if someone finds a flaw, you quickly fix it, generate a patch, patch your system, and BAM! Problem fixed. Windows just doesn't have this same capability.
People don't mind having a few glitches in their software, as long as there are fixes provided for those glitches in due time, and without cost considering they bought your product in good faith. This is where Microsoft falters; they provide patches, but what do they really do? Do they fix blue screens of death? Some, yes. But are they fixing what the user-base wants to see fixed? I think not.
Besides, it is very, very hard for linux to be sued, where microsoft could be sued very easily. Linux is separated into several smaller projects, while windows is one gigantic project. It is easier to hit the large target than spend attorney's fees on sueing 900 smaller companies-- Strength lies in numbers. Besides, as long as you can get a timely fix to your product, people are not going to sue you; the converse will happen. People will realize that you hear their calls for help and actually act (gasp) on their comments. Just make sure users know that not EVERY SINGLE FUNCTIONAL WHIM of the user is going to be implemented, but at least give them the benifit of making your software better at no cost, considering they paid for it. (Or you could do the converse approach, give away a basic version of the software, and sell support and upgrades.)
True, however it is not unfeasable. SMTP, while great, has it's inherent flaws (VERY insecure, addresses are easily spoofed, etc.). If an RFC was drawn up to handle email in a bit more secure way (aka. Making it so it is impossible to spoof an address (well, make the email address spoofable, but not the ip address traking that is kept in the mime headers).
This is one reason I'm looking forward to IPv6. IPv6 incorperates so many more addresses into the mix that it can be technically feasible to track ip addresses with email. True, the size of the email will grow substantially, but is it a risk we are willing to take? Look at it this way, if we had enough IPv6 addresses to basically assign every network interface in the world to its own, unique address that was unalterable, we could track any email and it's origins.
I agree, it is infeasable to change the speck for SMTP-IPv4. But, when SMTP-IPv6 comes out, the opportunity to re-invent some of this (as well as many other) protocols is presented.
Well, you could always look at things in the greater light; if this SP2 really ends up nerfing so many applications, doesn't it stand to reason that it might be yet another reason in the OpenSource/Linux Movement's arsenal? I mean, what happens if a company that has spent millions on developing an application for windows finds out that their program is not going to function (is going to get "nerfed"). Maybe if someone could manage to quickly write a way to convert windows apps to linux (well, applications that use the current, windows XP SP1 version of windows), we could manage to grab another portion of the market by allowing these companies to easily migrate to linux?
I completely agree...
I mean, lets look at the facts...
A cell phone has, at MOST, 20 buttons. The buttons are not the most responsive on the market, in fact, half the time I have to push the buttons on my cell phone rather hard and delibrately in order for them to work. The screen, as stated by merlin_jim, is less than wonderful. 256x256x12@15hz is probably an overstatement. Third of all. 3d games on a cell phone? Lets see... how much memory are we talking? Just look at the simplest of true "3d" games that didn't use raycasting. Doom? Descent? How far can a screen of that size really go?
Besides, most 3d games require a fairly good key entry system, and this, quite frankly, doesn't qualify.
While I may be a programmer, I'm really into games. Linux is great; don't get me wrong. There are 100x more things you can do under linux. But until someone can implement all of my favorite games on linux, and make them work on linux, I'm kinda stuck with windows.
Also, I happen to have some ATI video cards, some of which don't have the best linux support. So, I'm kinda stuck. MAKE BETTER DRIVERS FOR LINUX, ATI!!!
Although, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible just to write dll replacements or something, and whenever a windows program refrences a dll, you refrence the equivalent library on your linux box. I mean, you could just write a simple DirectX dll translator that takes all directX calls and translates them directly to the equivalant linux command. True, this approach would require a lot in the way of reverse engineering (if we don't want copyright infringement to kick in) and a lot in the way of work (I mean, how many different versions of dll's are there out there? Seriously, it is rediculous).
Slashdot Mirror
It makes one wonder all of the potential abuses of this law. Since Patents are considered "Intellectual Property", would it be much of a stretch to assume that this law would grant "self help" to those looking to squash patent violators? Microsoft, for example, could probably argue that they can "help" themselves squash patent violators by attacking users of Linux, or OpenOffice (Not that I know of any specific violations in either of these two, but that's the danger of extralegal enforcement; it's shoot first, ask questions later. Only if they are caught are there any problems.), or any number of other technologies. Makes me wonder if the RIAA/MPAA would try to get anything under the radar in this bill. (By trying to argue that extralegal attacks on various networks are legal because they stunt "other illegal activities" performed by software.)
I've always wondered this. The current DMCA, AFAIK, makes breaking encryption a questionable prospect, at best (unless you have permission from the encryption designers). Why should this even be protected? Shouldn't we just encourage people to use stronger encryption that isn't as easily circumvented (in effect, why are we legislating that the use of "weak" encryption is okay)?
Personally, I think the encryption itself should be the deterrent to the circumvention of the encryption, not legislation.
If we can break the encryption, too bad; use something besides Fisher Price's "My First Encryption Algorithm" next time.
The core of the problem with net neutrality is, as I see it, a confusion of roles from the telecoms (TC). On a basic level, the _only_ thing (that I am personally interested in), is a connection to global Internet. Network Neutrality issues arise when the TC begins to provide non-connectivity based services (they starting thinking that they are an ISP (which is natural, due to vertical integration)). The entire point of paying telecoms for an internet connection is to achieve nothing but a connection (NON-BIASED routing included) to the network they were payed by the government to produce! That is it. Beginning, Middle, and End. When these connection-based providers start believing that they are the ones responsible to provide the services the internet runs on is when we run into issues. Thus, I present the following:
1) Since the telecoms are a government granted monopoly, it should be 100% possible to buy, without any "independent bandwidth rates" or other garbage, a connection (where connection means that I can route traffic to/from the internet) with absolutely no other services associated with it. By independent connection fees, I mean that it should not be possible for the local TC to charge $20 for a 1.5m/256k line to an arbitrary group (probably some subsidiary or something), and make everyone else pay $200 for the same connection. In short, I am paying for the CONNECTION, at a set rate, and nothing else. Everyone else pays the same rate (no favoritism here).
2) Telecoms are responsible for non-biased routing. Non-biased meaning "without regard to source, destination, or content type." This does NOT make QoS impossible (relative importance of traffic). Violation of this policy is cause for serious fines and/or termination business license.
3) Purchasing of a independent connection.
4) Overall bandwidth throttling is still allowed, within reason.
*) Total download bandwidth restrictions (ex. You can only download 5 GB of data a month) should be severely restricted or completely outlawed.
(The last two are not directly related to Net Neutrality, I know, but might as well be complete)
What do we gain from this?
1) Legally removes the coupling between the connection provider and the ISP (via non-biased routing), thus removing the problem with shutting off one ser
2) Fosters free market development of ISPs on a local level (the ISP becomes little more than, well, the Internet Service Provider. (DNS, Email, Webhosting). If you do not like any of the ISPs on your market, well, you can make your own!
3) Writes into law that biased routing will not be tolerated! We, the people, payed for the development, deployment, and are paying for the maintenance of these lines. Your sole existence is to maintain and upgrade the system. Period.
Potential problems with the above:
The physical connection being ran to the house. Watch out for: "Well, you can get your own independent connection, but it will cost you $100,000 to initially run to your residence if you don't get it in our in-house ISP's 10 year contract!" Unless government regulation is placed on the cost of the actual connection being ran to the residence (or, optionally, having the government subsidize the connection itself), I fear this would be the next step in TC extortion.
And just on a side note, the very idea that Net Neutrality will stifle innovation is a laugh. Lets think about this; you can either make big corporations be the only game in town, or let _anyone_ be a potential game in town. Which sounds a bit more like it could stifle any potential innovations?
Lets see...
Refusal to work with public standards/insistence on being the "creator" of everything:
OpenXML vs. OpenDocument (an already established standard)
Direct3D vs. OpenGL (once again, already established standard)
Digital "Rights" Management support
Windows Activation
Support of Software Patents
Security Problems
The "Reformat and Reinstall" cycle
Platform Lock-in - A single powerful platform equates to a single platform that the majority of applications are developed for, which results in an even more powerful single platform. (PC Games are a great example of this). Not that a single powerful platform is a bad thing; it is just that the single power platform shouldn't be controlled by a single company! (*cough* GNU/Linux *cough*)
The EULA
Granted, Microsoft has been trying to play a bit "nicer" lately (opening up a free version of Visual Studio, for example).
To quote wikipedia:
"In Leathers v. Medlock (1991), the Supreme Court found that states may treat different types of the media differently, such as by taxing cable television, but not newspapers"
Last I checked, Video Games != newspapers (or the press, as stated in the first amendment).
And this is wise, how? I mean, if the government wants this to be more than just a sit in the books law, then they are going to have to spend money (which california is already in desparate lack) finding these so-called criminals, assuming these people are going to even give their emails. Considering that the RIAA already threatend to sue anyone caught downloading music, you think that people would stop downloading it, but it doesn't seem to stop that many people...
Besides, we need to look at the scope of this law anyway. Does this mean that windows file sharing by the dumb user who happens to have a public IP is going to be illegal? Is it going to be illegal to have your own internet site without supplying your email address in plain view for spammers? Etc.
People just need to face it. Unless the nature of the internet changes, it is damned near impossible to regulate.
"require and email address for people who share files" --- and this is going to deter people from sharing files more than a threat to sue? Seriously, if anyone could implement this, it would be a cakewalk. But, alas, anyone that has half a clue when it comes to networking soon realizes that it is dang near impossible to track down an IP to an exact geographic location, let alone find enough evidence to prove the traffic came from that particular address.
Am I the only one that noticed it said 100 megabytes of web space.. I personally know that is 1000 megabytes...
Heh, that is cool. It would be nice to see what exactly they are going to do with Fallout, considering what a good job they did with morrowind.
I think that most of us are forgetting some of the major arguments to this issue. It isn't so much that windows is released with flaws, it is that they cannot release enough support patches to fix those flaws. The beauty of linux is if someone finds a flaw, you quickly fix it, generate a patch, patch your system, and BAM! Problem fixed. Windows just doesn't have this same capability.
People don't mind having a few glitches in their software, as long as there are fixes provided for those glitches in due time, and without cost considering they bought your product in good faith. This is where Microsoft falters; they provide patches, but what do they really do? Do they fix blue screens of death? Some, yes. But are they fixing what the user-base wants to see fixed? I think not.
Besides, it is very, very hard for linux to be sued, where microsoft could be sued very easily. Linux is separated into several smaller projects, while windows is one gigantic project. It is easier to hit the large target than spend attorney's fees on sueing 900 smaller companies-- Strength lies in numbers. Besides, as long as you can get a timely fix to your product, people are not going to sue you; the converse will happen. People will realize that you hear their calls for help and actually act (gasp) on their comments. Just make sure users know that not EVERY SINGLE FUNCTIONAL WHIM of the user is going to be implemented, but at least give them the benifit of making your software better at no cost, considering they paid for it. (Or you could do the converse approach, give away a basic version of the software, and sell support and upgrades.)
True, however it is not unfeasable. SMTP, while great, has it's inherent flaws (VERY insecure, addresses are easily spoofed, etc.). If an RFC was drawn up to handle email in a bit more secure way (aka. Making it so it is impossible to spoof an address (well, make the email address spoofable, but not the ip address traking that is kept in the mime headers).
This is one reason I'm looking forward to IPv6. IPv6 incorperates so many more addresses into the mix that it can be technically feasible to track ip addresses with email. True, the size of the email will grow substantially, but is it a risk we are willing to take? Look at it this way, if we had enough IPv6 addresses to basically assign every network interface in the world to its own, unique address that was unalterable, we could track any email and it's origins.
I agree, it is infeasable to change the speck for SMTP-IPv4. But, when SMTP-IPv6 comes out, the opportunity to re-invent some of this (as well as many other) protocols is presented.
Well, you could always look at things in the greater light; if this SP2 really ends up nerfing so many applications, doesn't it stand to reason that it might be yet another reason in the OpenSource/Linux Movement's arsenal? I mean, what happens if a company that has spent millions on developing an application for windows finds out that their program is not going to function (is going to get "nerfed"). Maybe if someone could manage to quickly write a way to convert windows apps to linux (well, applications that use the current, windows XP SP1 version of windows), we could manage to grab another portion of the market by allowing these companies to easily migrate to linux?
Just a thought...
I completely agree...
I mean, lets look at the facts...
A cell phone has, at MOST, 20 buttons. The buttons are not the most responsive on the market, in fact, half the time I have to push the buttons on my cell phone rather hard and delibrately in order for them to work. The screen, as stated by merlin_jim, is less than wonderful. 256x256x12@15hz is probably an overstatement. Third of all. 3d games on a cell phone? Lets see... how much memory are we talking? Just look at the simplest of true "3d" games that didn't use raycasting. Doom? Descent? How far can a screen of that size really go?
Besides, most 3d games require a fairly good key entry system, and this, quite frankly, doesn't qualify.
While I may be a programmer, I'm really into games. Linux is great; don't get me wrong. There are 100x more things you can do under linux. But until someone can implement all of my favorite games on linux, and make them work on linux, I'm kinda stuck with windows. Also, I happen to have some ATI video cards, some of which don't have the best linux support. So, I'm kinda stuck. MAKE BETTER DRIVERS FOR LINUX, ATI!!! Although, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible just to write dll replacements or something, and whenever a windows program refrences a dll, you refrence the equivalent library on your linux box. I mean, you could just write a simple DirectX dll translator that takes all directX calls and translates them directly to the equivalant linux command. True, this approach would require a lot in the way of reverse engineering (if we don't want copyright infringement to kick in) and a lot in the way of work (I mean, how many different versions of dll's are there out there? Seriously, it is rediculous).