I have yet to find anyone to pick up on this, and it surprises me (unless I'm just hideously mistaken).
There are plenty of conspiracy points that are fantasy and some can be taken seriously, but what intrigues me is that Dvorak rags on M$ for making the claim that BitTorrent==spyware. However, it's quite the hypocracy to say that coming from the tainted maw of Micro$oft for one main reason. What is there to stop M$ from making Avalanche into a complete spybot with usage reporting? If they know that users can crack the DRM, then they could just write a self-updating element that constantly sends user stats back to M$ if that 'feature' isn't already built into the protocol.
This 'feature' already exists in the newer versions of WMP, which is why I don't use Windows' built in programs to do much of anything. Usage statistic reporting as the program calls it just seems like willfully installing spyware. Who knows what they do with this data? Regardless, they can leave my activity report out of it.
Okay, the only major point that Dvorak makes here is that MS is clearly up to something. Through each group of sentences, it's almost the exact same thing. When considering how old Micro$oft is, anyone can make a conjecture that M$ is up to some sort of conspiracy. Do you know what it's called?
Marketing
We all know the M$ hype machine and don't need any sort of self-proclaimed expert to tell us that something from M$ is not what it seems. However, I think there could be more to the idea of an Avalanche conspiracy:
How about the idea that M$ could strike a deal with the (MP | RI)AA to give them the info on people trading copyrighted files that had been hacked due to a pathetic DRM? I know it may sound like a little bit of a stretch, but Verizon DSL did something similar before, so I'm surprised that Dvorak didn't think of it.
Wait a minute...a squirrel just climbed a tree...M$ is behind this.
I'm not even sure that's really the problem with AOL. Most of these services are already being provided by independant web sites or are rolled into the user homepage of many broadband ISPs. Why bother going to another page to get substandard audio/video feeds when your SBC/Roadrunner/whatever homepage does most (if not all) of that for you? I don't think anybody is really in the mood for another AOL browser on top of this.
Most people I know don't even associate AIM with AOL, and when that's the case, providing content that's been available through other portals for years will be quite a stretch to save the company. Catching up with the times alone will take a lot of work, but they can't be 'as modern as their competitors' to survive. They're going to need to be much more advanced to shoot past everyone else and escape the grim fate that looms overhead.
I know that every group has its' trolls but, I'm not sure I could classify us (if they can make a generalization to slam on us, I can make one to redeem us as well.) as malicious. Let's think about this for a second:
True: We have coined the term slashdotted for killing a site's bandwidth cap through many users clicking through.
True: Above mentioned slashdotting has given 'free press' to sites that may not have become as known as they did without the link.
True: Reader evaluation and commentary can (keyword: can) provide insightful information about a given topic before downloading/buying/reading...
True: Slashdotted content can also speed up the process of bug reporting or weak features of a product.
Okay, so we've murdered some bandwidth in the past. If someone's wiki got spammed with porn, they should have set up a better moderation system. Either they find out within two days that their system wasn't effective or it would happen eventually after it was established as a normal page (thus making users cry out WTF when the page goes down).
I wouldn't call us malicious...more like hyper enthusiastic.
...is the lesson I learned getting my degree in Interactive Media Design. I don't see Yahoo and Google in competition as much as simply different services. Some of their departments cross over, but I use Gooogle for finding just about anything and email, while Yahoo is my portal to movie listings, my stock quote and a place to store bookmarks, notes and calendar based events.
It really depends on what you're looking for in most of the areas of service from each company. Google seems more interesting in refining ways to search and pioneering new uses for the internet. On the other hand, Yahoo is where I go for a remote login PDA. I'd like Google to provide notes/calendar features, but if they don't then I'm happy with a 2GB inbox, picture uploading, specialized searches and nifty maps. I'll just use Yahoo as an internet organizer.
True enough, but the Starbucks reference is only an analogy. Imagine a signal so powerful (just like it's being advertised to be) that can easily deliver WiFi through walls and such. It wouldn't be long before people figure the best method for piggybacking off of someone else's IP to get the same access. It's the wireless equivalent of splicing cable from your neighbor.
Given the average persons' poor tech safety practices, I hope these WiMax devices come with hardware firewalls. Otherwise, they're going to learn the hard way.
Dark Helmet:
I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Star:
What does that make us?
Dark Helmet:
Absolutely nothing, which is where this link takes you.
What I wonder is this:
Yes it does seem like an interesting idea, but how many of your friends run the same software you do? I still have friends that I'm trying to convert from IE, but it's too easy for them use what's already there. I know plenty of cliques that hang together because they all like running BSD/Linux and deal with programming and such, but none of them use the same distro or the same preferences.
My bottom line is this: Look at your best friends computer. Do they have the same extensions that you do? Do they even run Firefox? The network can only be as expansive as the people that decide to jump on board.
I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but if they could deliver this gargantuan wireless range, won't that provoke more crackers to break through the security so they can leech net access off of the Starbucks HotSpot a few miles away?
It just seems logical to me that with such an impressive possible range of operation, there would be a greater tempation to pickpocket with telekinesis, so to speak.
Well of course we will, but as I said above, once the amateurs fall to the wayside, then blogs won't even be anything other than commonplace. Almost like email. People will be asking if you have a (insert new fad here) and blogs, in whatever moniker/form they assume will exist as just another type of page.
I remember when meta-search engines were new. While you couldn't own one, people thought they sounded smart by using one, and now they're nothing special. LiveJournal.com was the early form of pop-blogging as far as I can tell, but now we want more sophistication. Instead of asking if you have a journal, they assume you do and ask if you have adwords on yours. Just wait, and they'll leave us alone in time.
Is it just me, or do all the senseless blogs encompassing the few good ones remind anyone of a previous trend? I seem to be recalling the early years of public internet when search engines couldn't find much of anything relevant for you because half the sites that turned up were some poorly written/designed AOL or GeoCities page when that a new thing.
I suppose that, like many of those pages, we can just hope for the amateur bloggers to fade away in a few years and we'll have some new annoying web trend in its place.
True, but when these users get 'cut off', they'll have to buy an apple computer, which is a little more than a liscense for XP Pro. Still some converts to be gained, but when $300 dollars becomes $1,500 or so, that numble begins to decline for a slightly longer short-term than PC users go through now.
First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.
The other problem with that idea is that people are going to have to download new programs because being an intel computer of any type doesn't allow you to install the same software on Windows as you do on Unix. OSX is a BSD Unix system after all. This may not be a very good toy unless people are downloading it to make a complete switch pending any advancement in cross-platform software.
Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it? It may work for CDs in a good number of cases, but I can't see that happening as much as this article hopes on an OS level. It may help to increase publicity, which will garner some increase in sales, but nothing like the fame achieved by The Grey Album.
If it works out for Apple in the end, then kudos, but with increased DRM practices and the great deal of elitism among the diehard mac fans, one would have to wonder about the possibility of two camps of mac fans if the piracy worked. Imageine authentic vs. underground fans disputing like Linux vs. BSD users sometimes do...
While I can sympathize, here's some food for thought:
We may not care what some dink at CNN Money thinks, but investors may. If the people with funding don't understand what they're investing in, stories like this could be hazardous if it convinces enough people. CNN is pretty well read amongst a lot of typical 'professional types' and if we're a little more aware of what misinformation they may be getting, I'd rather be that much more prepared.
...whether it's mini or not in my mind. Hype is what helped cause the legendary dot-bomb, and I'd rather keep my job.
All credit given to successful internet companies, I don't see it as a boom of any sort, I think of it more like big forecasts for what has actually worked this time around. Google may not continue to rise endlessly in the stock market, but internet companies are doing better in part because the internet is becoming so ubiquitous that you really can't avoid having some tie-in to your website in many industries. I'm glad to see companies coming back from the dot-bomb, but I can't call it a boom or a mini-boom.
How about a more stable term like 'successful market'? That sounds a little bit safer than over-hyping things again.
I didn't mean to sound as if it actually is a new copyright system. Rather, I think that CC attempts to lay out packages in plain english terms.
I know it may sound silly, but I think it gives some people a little peace of mind to know their liscense actually means rather than think of liscensing terms as 'someone else's job'.
To me, knowing the actual rights I have gives a feeling of separation from the normal copyright system because I don't need a lawyer to interpret all the definitions. Creative Commons is easy enough to find and understand that it gives the illusion of being a different entity. I can't find fault in CC for seeming to 'create something new is because people don't understand the current standard' because the current standard can be quite difficult for the average person to understand. It's like promoting copyright literacy, and I'll stand up for that. Almost anything can be pirated, but if people are aware of what they can do about it, I don't care if they're claiming to be a movement or a revolution.
...God forbid the connection lags and you hit submit 4 times. They better have some good order verification:)
Then again, like the advent of consumer priced broadband crawling slowly past the cities, I wonder how long it will take before this is anything but simply another way to order a lunch meeting meal for metro area companies.
I think the real reason that people are creating a new 'movement' with regards to copyright is to distance themselves from the decaying foundation that copyright is built on.
After all, would you really want to be part of the run-of-the-mill copyright system when a new bill to be passed in the not so distant future may change or compromise your intent for a work's enjoyment?
The reason that people don't understand the current standard is partly because it keeps changing. Trademark rights over URL names is a joke, and most DRM practices are being actively cracked. In an age as reliant on the internet as we are, we have almost no real protection against the new host for our work given our current model. For heaven's sake, they're still extending the copyright to kill public domain for traditional publishing instead of caring about internet related copyright, which should have been at least twice as refined as it is now.
While I can understand the desire to feel a little more control than being a 'test subject', some of that just comes with the territory of Linux/OSS in my mind.
While I don't claim to speak for everyone, how often do you use OSS that isn't in some form of testing stage. For me and most of the developers I know, by the time a new stable version comes out, the new beta has about 4 new features, a better GUI, forum threads on fixing beta bugs, or any combination.
I like having almost every option at my disposal. Besides, who doesn't like the hearing about someone using a 'new' program and telling them, "Oh I've been working with that since the alpha!"
Then again, while I get the joke, you have to think about it for a moment. When a company is paying people to slowly infect/break (depending on the malware) computers, do you really think they're honest enough to hand out checks? It's all connected man. I'm already looking over my shoulder for The Man...
What was I talking about again? Oh yeah! Now there's another no-talent band who probably won't survive past their second CD.
If you think about it, there have been several people mentioning good points on this. While I'm not saying there hasn't been any good bands since The Beatles, the talent in the popular (US) music industry in dwindling fast. Just a few years ago, I remember when bands put out a good first album, and then the second bombed, or sometimes the first was okay and the second one got much better, but now it's become quite desolate.
So instead of getting roaylties for 50 years, and having 5 albums to collect from, now we have one hit wonders who collect from one song for life+life of next of kin. It all evens out in the end!
Half the bands I'm hearing lately have mediocre first CDs with a lot of hype because their dancy/heavy/tormented/fast/whatever yet their lyrics completely lack any substance. Not only that, but then a good number of them don't even stay together to put out a second album.
Soon we'll have copyrights lasting 200 years, but 'artists' only produce a single and get about as much money from it a year as a debt collector does from garnished wages.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to find anyone to pick up on this, and it surprises me (unless I'm just hideously mistaken).
There are plenty of conspiracy points that are fantasy and some can be taken seriously, but what intrigues me is that Dvorak rags on M$ for making the claim that BitTorrent==spyware. However, it's quite the hypocracy to say that coming from the tainted maw of Micro$oft for one main reason. What is there to stop M$ from making Avalanche into a complete spybot with usage reporting? If they know that users can crack the DRM, then they could just write a self-updating element that constantly sends user stats back to M$ if that 'feature' isn't already built into the protocol.
This 'feature' already exists in the newer versions of WMP, which is why I don't use Windows' built in programs to do much of anything. Usage statistic reporting as the program calls it just seems like willfully installing spyware. Who knows what they do with this data? Regardless, they can leave my activity report out of it.
I've seen my share of quirks as well, but also notice that I refered to them as nifty, and not perfect :)
Okay, the only major point that Dvorak makes here is that MS is clearly up to something. Through each group of sentences, it's almost the exact same thing. When considering how old Micro$oft is, anyone can make a conjecture that M$ is up to some sort of conspiracy. Do you know what it's called?
Marketing
We all know the M$ hype machine and don't need any sort of self-proclaimed expert to tell us that something from M$ is not what it seems. However, I think there could be more to the idea of an Avalanche conspiracy:
How about the idea that M$ could strike a deal with the (MP | RI)AA to give them the info on people trading copyrighted files that had been hacked due to a pathetic DRM? I know it may sound like a little bit of a stretch, but Verizon DSL did something similar before, so I'm surprised that Dvorak didn't think of it.
Wait a minute...a squirrel just climbed a tree...M$ is behind this.
I'm not even sure that's really the problem with AOL. Most of these services are already being provided by independant web sites or are rolled into the user homepage of many broadband ISPs. Why bother going to another page to get substandard audio/video feeds when your SBC/Roadrunner/whatever homepage does most (if not all) of that for you? I don't think anybody is really in the mood for another AOL browser on top of this.
Most people I know don't even associate AIM with AOL, and when that's the case, providing content that's been available through other portals for years will be quite a stretch to save the company. Catching up with the times alone will take a lot of work, but they can't be 'as modern as their competitors' to survive. They're going to need to be much more advanced to shoot past everyone else and escape the grim fate that looms overhead.
I know that every group has its' trolls but, I'm not sure I could classify us (if they can make a generalization to slam on us, I can make one to redeem us as well.) as malicious. Let's think about this for a second:
True: We have coined the term slashdotted for killing a site's bandwidth cap through many users clicking through.
True: Above mentioned slashdotting has given 'free press' to sites that may not have become as known as they did without the link.
True: Reader evaluation and commentary can (keyword: can) provide insightful information about a given topic before downloading/buying/reading...
True: Slashdotted content can also speed up the process of bug reporting or weak features of a product.
Okay, so we've murdered some bandwidth in the past. If someone's wiki got spammed with porn, they should have set up a better moderation system. Either they find out within two days that their system wasn't effective or it would happen eventually after it was established as a normal page (thus making users cry out WTF when the page goes down).
I wouldn't call us malicious...more like hyper enthusiastic.
...is the lesson I learned getting my degree in Interactive Media Design. I don't see Yahoo and Google in competition as much as simply different services. Some of their departments cross over, but I use Gooogle for finding just about anything and email, while Yahoo is my portal to movie listings, my stock quote and a place to store bookmarks, notes and calendar based events.
It really depends on what you're looking for in most of the areas of service from each company. Google seems more interesting in refining ways to search and pioneering new uses for the internet. On the other hand, Yahoo is where I go for a remote login PDA. I'd like Google to provide notes/calendar features, but if they don't then I'm happy with a 2GB inbox, picture uploading, specialized searches and nifty maps. I'll just use Yahoo as an internet organizer.
True enough, but the Starbucks reference is only an analogy. Imagine a signal so powerful (just like it's being advertised to be) that can easily deliver WiFi through walls and such. It wouldn't be long before people figure the best method for piggybacking off of someone else's IP to get the same access. It's the wireless equivalent of splicing cable from your neighbor.
Given the average persons' poor tech safety practices, I hope these WiMax devices come with hardware firewalls. Otherwise, they're going to learn the hard way.
Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Star: What does that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing, which is where this link takes you.
What I wonder is this: Yes it does seem like an interesting idea, but how many of your friends run the same software you do? I still have friends that I'm trying to convert from IE, but it's too easy for them use what's already there. I know plenty of cliques that hang together because they all like running BSD/Linux and deal with programming and such, but none of them use the same distro or the same preferences.
My bottom line is this: Look at your best friends computer. Do they have the same extensions that you do? Do they even run Firefox? The network can only be as expansive as the people that decide to jump on board.
"Won't we have to beef up network security?"
I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but if they could deliver this gargantuan wireless range, won't that provoke more crackers to break through the security so they can leech net access off of the Starbucks HotSpot a few miles away?
It just seems logical to me that with such an impressive possible range of operation, there would be a greater tempation to pickpocket with telekinesis, so to speak.
That's just my thought on it.
Well of course we will, but as I said above, once the amateurs fall to the wayside, then blogs won't even be anything other than commonplace. Almost like email. People will be asking if you have a (insert new fad here) and blogs, in whatever moniker/form they assume will exist as just another type of page.
I remember when meta-search engines were new. While you couldn't own one, people thought they sounded smart by using one, and now they're nothing special. LiveJournal.com was the early form of pop-blogging as far as I can tell, but now we want more sophistication. Instead of asking if you have a journal, they assume you do and ask if you have adwords on yours. Just wait, and they'll leave us alone in time.
Is it just me, or do all the senseless blogs encompassing the few good ones remind anyone of a previous trend? I seem to be recalling the early years of public internet when search engines couldn't find much of anything relevant for you because half the sites that turned up were some poorly written/designed AOL or GeoCities page when that a new thing.
I suppose that, like many of those pages, we can just hope for the amateur bloggers to fade away in a few years and we'll have some new annoying web trend in its place.
True, but when these users get 'cut off', they'll have to buy an apple computer, which is a little more than a liscense for XP Pro. Still some converts to be gained, but when $300 dollars becomes $1,500 or so, that numble begins to decline for a slightly longer short-term than PC users go through now.
First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.
The other problem with that idea is that people are going to have to download new programs because being an intel computer of any type doesn't allow you to install the same software on Windows as you do on Unix. OSX is a BSD Unix system after all. This may not be a very good toy unless people are downloading it to make a complete switch pending any advancement in cross-platform software.
Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it? It may work for CDs in a good number of cases, but I can't see that happening as much as this article hopes on an OS level. It may help to increase publicity, which will garner some increase in sales, but nothing like the fame achieved by The Grey Album.
If it works out for Apple in the end, then kudos, but with increased DRM practices and the great deal of elitism among the diehard mac fans, one would have to wonder about the possibility of two camps of mac fans if the piracy worked. Imageine authentic vs. underground fans disputing like Linux vs. BSD users sometimes do...
While I can sympathize, here's some food for thought:
We may not care what some dink at CNN Money thinks, but investors may. If the people with funding don't understand what they're investing in, stories like this could be hazardous if it convinces enough people. CNN is pretty well read amongst a lot of typical 'professional types' and if we're a little more aware of what misinformation they may be getting, I'd rather be that much more prepared.
...whether it's mini or not in my mind. Hype is what helped cause the legendary dot-bomb, and I'd rather keep my job.
All credit given to successful internet companies, I don't see it as a boom of any sort, I think of it more like big forecasts for what has actually worked this time around. Google may not continue to rise endlessly in the stock market, but internet companies are doing better in part because the internet is becoming so ubiquitous that you really can't avoid having some tie-in to your website in many industries. I'm glad to see companies coming back from the dot-bomb, but I can't call it a boom or a mini-boom.
How about a more stable term like 'successful market'? That sounds a little bit safer than over-hyping things again.
I meant that as a joke.
I didn't mean to sound as if it actually is a new copyright system. Rather, I think that CC attempts to lay out packages in plain english terms.
I know it may sound silly, but I think it gives some people a little peace of mind to know their liscense actually means rather than think of liscensing terms as 'someone else's job'.
To me, knowing the actual rights I have gives a feeling of separation from the normal copyright system because I don't need a lawyer to interpret all the definitions. Creative Commons is easy enough to find and understand that it gives the illusion of being a different entity. I can't find fault in CC for seeming to 'create something new is because people don't understand the current standard' because the current standard can be quite difficult for the average person to understand. It's like promoting copyright literacy, and I'll stand up for that. Almost anything can be pirated, but if people are aware of what they can do about it, I don't care if they're claiming to be a movement or a revolution.
...God forbid the connection lags and you hit submit 4 times. They better have some good order verification :)
Then again, like the advent of consumer priced broadband crawling slowly past the cities, I wonder how long it will take before this is anything but simply another way to order a lunch meeting meal for metro area companies.
I think the real reason that people are creating a new 'movement' with regards to copyright is to distance themselves from the decaying foundation that copyright is built on.
After all, would you really want to be part of the run-of-the-mill copyright system when a new bill to be passed in the not so distant future may change or compromise your intent for a work's enjoyment?
The reason that people don't understand the current standard is partly because it keeps changing. Trademark rights over URL names is a joke, and most DRM practices are being actively cracked. In an age as reliant on the internet as we are, we have almost no real protection against the new host for our work given our current model. For heaven's sake, they're still extending the copyright to kill public domain for traditional publishing instead of caring about internet related copyright, which should have been at least twice as refined as it is now.
Yeah, I'll admit also, M$ makes some really simple installers, but there is one point to consider:
The extra minutes you spend setting up before your first login can help ease the amount of mucking around later to change prefs.
A couple of years? I thought the only difference between Fedora and Debian was .rpm and .deb?
While I can understand the desire to feel a little more control than being a 'test subject', some of that just comes with the territory of Linux/OSS in my mind. While I don't claim to speak for everyone, how often do you use OSS that isn't in some form of testing stage. For me and most of the developers I know, by the time a new stable version comes out, the new beta has about 4 new features, a better GUI, forum threads on fixing beta bugs, or any combination. I like having almost every option at my disposal. Besides, who doesn't like the hearing about someone using a 'new' program and telling them, "Oh I've been working with that since the alpha!"
Then again, while I get the joke, you have to think about it for a moment. When a company is paying people to slowly infect/break (depending on the malware) computers, do you really think they're honest enough to hand out checks? It's all connected man. I'm already looking over my shoulder for The Man...
...wait.
What was I talking about again? Oh yeah! Now there's another no-talent band who probably won't survive past their second CD.
If you think about it, there have been several people mentioning good points on this. While I'm not saying there hasn't been any good bands since The Beatles, the talent in the popular (US) music industry in dwindling fast. Just a few years ago, I remember when bands put out a good first album, and then the second bombed, or sometimes the first was okay and the second one got much better, but now it's become quite desolate.
So instead of getting roaylties for 50 years, and having 5 albums to collect from, now we have one hit wonders who collect from one song for life+life of next of kin. It all evens out in the end!
Half the bands I'm hearing lately have mediocre first CDs with a lot of hype because their dancy/heavy/tormented/fast/whatever yet their lyrics completely lack any substance. Not only that, but then a good number of them don't even stay together to put out a second album.
Soon we'll have copyrights lasting 200 years, but 'artists' only produce a single and get about as much money from it a year as a debt collector does from garnished wages.