the tricky part about this is that you don't need to click on the attachment. Hotmail, just like many of the other newer email clients, recognizes it as html code, and embeds the html page into the page automatically. Unless you've changed settings, this will happen without you actually doing anything.
it's not a vbs file. it's an embeded javascript. there is no virus check run because it's not a virus and there isn't an anti-virus that checks for potentially malignant javascript. Hell, the creator only had to identify the cookie, the username, and the server the cookie was being held on, and automatically send all of this info to another account (which could have been a hotmail account)
"There is no reason to go after some of the Net's most vulnerable users -- kids -- or to establish a precedent that privacy can be wantonly violated and free Netizens intimidated every time some company, artist, or group is worried about maximizing profits. "
1. they're not violating net privacy. they haven't released the names or IP's of the individuals. They've just asked Napster to ban them from the Napster network for breaking the Napster TOS (thou shalt not break copyright law). They haven't included them (yet) in the lawsuit.
2. there is every reason to go after kids. if kids don't learn that pirating intellectual property is wrong, then they will continue to do it. yes, they should get slapped on the wrist. this is illegal and should remain illegal. and they're lucky they're only getting slapped on the wrist. if they were doing the same thing with software, they'd be getting their asses sued off and both you and I know that.
3. as with everyone else... if you're so for giving away intellectual property, why don't you put all of your books, in their full format, online in the form of free-downloadable pdf's with no encryption on them and allow everyone to download them without money, email addy's, or any guarantees?
4. this is not about maximizing profits. metallica produced an album. there are costs involved in producing the album, marketting the album, and selling the album. making this music IS THEIR JOB. that's how they pay their bills. regardless of how much money they make doing so, it is not our right to say "you've made enough money off of selling these albums, we're just going to rip some mp3's and distribute them since we should be allowed to because you charge us too much for cd's and it should all be free in the name of privacy and free digital transmissions."
5. kids knew they were doing something wrong. they were getting all the music they wanted for free. and if they had a burner, they were creating all of the mixes and cd's they wanted for the cost of $300 for the burner plus $1 for each cd. hell, they were even selling them to their friends. they knew it was illegal, or had to be... it was the biggest scam since selling "Olde Time Lemonade" that costs $2.00 for a big jar for 25 cents a glass. Don't give me that bullshit they didn't know they shouldn't be doing it.
yes, it's great that you now are given first amendment rights in terms of your email and stuff going through a network. the network is not responsible for what you post. but shouldn't the network be responsible if through their own gross negligence illegal activities are able to happen?
example 1: what if you're a Prodigy member with a name, circle of friends, credit card info, etc in your account. now lets say that someone somehow steals your account, has access to your credit card info, says damaging things to your circle of contacts, makes threatening emails to people, and all in your name. Shouldn't the ISP, in this case Prodigy, be held liable due to gross negligence in protecting the security of their network?
example 2: all that damn spam mail... now I'm getting tons and tons of spam mail from legit servers such as excite.com and yahoo.com and hotmail.com... it's going to a mailbox that I don't often use, but same principle applies. Shouldn't these ISP's and large companies be responsible for the information being sent through their network?
yes, I agree that they shouldn't be able to read or censor all of the information, but being able to walk away and say that they're not responsible for all of the spam sent through their servers or their lax security it NOT a good thing. If your computer is on a network that is accessable from anywhere in the world, you should be held responsible for your computer. It's just like having a gun... if your gun is taken and used in a homicide, you should be responsible for not taking the necessary precautions and preventing it from being used in a crime.
everyone that's gotten warez off of an IRC channel, raise your hand!
now, is that the fault of IRC, the IRC client you happen to be using, or the explicit fault of the users that happen to be pirating copyrighted software?
should Adobe and Microsoft and all those other companies try to shut down Internet Relay Chat? Should they sue the companies and individuals that make IRC clients? NO. They should go after the people distributing the copyrighted material. And yes, I'm sure it would be quite easy for lawyers to come in and shutdown the larger purveyors of the mp3's. I'll be there are server logs somewhere... hell, traceroute.
anyway, this is clearly illegal, but showing how idiotic lawyers, media, Dr. Dre, and the RIAA are, they're going after the wrong problem, and they're going after the symptom. This won't SOLVE anything. People will just find another way to get around paying $18 for a cd where you only really want 1 or 2 of the songs and the rest are crap. Until the music industry get's it's collective head out of its @ss, more applications are going to be created, more secret (or not so secret) trading grounds will pop up, and burners will become more and more popular.
"Is it even something that deserves worrying about?"
Cliff, are you kidding me? Do you want telemarketers collecting information on your child and indirectly on you through a web site? Don't you want to protect your child from blatant violations of your child's right to privacy because they don't understand that what they're doing is creating a profile under their name on some stranger's database? What if your kid goes to a site that asks for information about YOU? Hmmm... what if Disney, upon realizing that they were gathering information from a child, asks for their parents income (or puts it in cute terms like "what kind of car does your daddy drive?") Does this strike you as a problem?
just a question, but how many/. stories have been posted considerig this movie, both in terms of when it was coming out, details about the movie, reviews of the movie, and this whole dvd rumor crap?
I bet you that there have been close to a dozen different Star Wars Phantom Menace stories on/., and all concerning a movie that wasn't half as good as the original trilogy and looked like it was aimed to please 6 yr olds.
Enough is enough... this stuff should just be posted on the plethora of stupid sites dedicated to performing sexual acts on George Lucas and idol-worshipping him for a half-baked storyline which only contained about 30 min of quality footage.
Why is this story here? To be honest, I think the stock story of this past weekend was a better addition to/. than the George Lucas worship.
Lets go under a few assumptions: 1. you don't want to skimp on the site design/graphic look 2. 90% of the web is browsing on a 4.0 browser that supports CSS 3. 90% is using a minimum of a 33.6 dialup.
under these assumptions, I would like to say that you wouldn't have to skimp on anything to create a site that caters to a variety of languages with only 1 version of the code.
CSS tied into something like PHP would be your answer plain and simple.
Text could be dynamically swapped in depending on the selected language, keep your image buttons plain and layer the text above the image, etc and you're all good.
Make a site in which you could easily substitute different "palettes" into the design... not designed differently, just coded differently. It's not as difficult as many people make it out to be. CSS is a much more powerful tool in web design than many people give it credit for (most use it just for text decoration). I suggest picking up a book on it.
and here you're showing exactly why so many people lost money in this correction in the tech sector. NO, you are not evaluating what the company will be worth next year, you are giving the value of the company today. People started giving tech stocks huge valuations in price because they thought they saw these companies making huge amounts of money soon, just not now. Most other companies are evaluated on what they're doing right now, what their debt is, what their gains or losses are and will be, etc. Part-ownership in an ongoing loss? Just because a company offers stock does not mean that they're losing money. A profitable company with no debt can offer stock as simply a way of converting a share of their company into capital that they can use for their own purposes. The market valuation of that %% ownership determines how much their company is worth. The prediction you are talking about is what the analysts THINK they company will do in the coming quarter, but as we all know, there aren't always correct, and actual earnings are what really count, not predictions.
Well, we now have Apple G4's considered weapons (I don't know how, but oh well) and a gaming station from Sony not allowed to be exported because it could act as a weapons system...
So now both a desktop computer for graphic junkies (mac people are fanatics) and a gaming station for quake junkies (equally fanatical plus they have weapons training and bloodlust) are both able to purchase machines that are considered weapons.
<sarcasm>What the hell is this world coming to? Screw gun control, we're now putting dangerous hardware in the hands of crazy radicals!!!</sarcasm>
This has got to be the dumbest comment I've ever read.
No, the stock market is not just paper. It is part ownership in a company. It's part ownership in the entity that pays your bills. If that piece of paper is worth nothing, that means the company is worth nothing, which means that you won't be getting a paycheck. Now this is an over-generalization, but in effect, it's true. Stock OPTIONS are just paper. They're notes that say you have the ability to buy stock at an imaginary price, however with options you don't actually own anything yet. Yes, there you'd be a paper millionaire. However, people that actually OWN stock and are able to cash out at any given moment are more than just paper rich. They ARE rich.
there used to be this game for the Apple IIe or IIgs where the story line was along the lines of a doctor being shrunk with some gadget and given this little nano-type-ship to pilot, and then being injected into various parts of the human body.
the missions where to clean up a certain health problem or fix certain problems, battle germs and bacteria and such, navigate the heart, etc... was really lame, but every time I hear about nanotech and healthcare, that game always pops into my head. Damn wasted braincells... atleast I can't remember the name of the game.
your points against the service don't make any sense.
1. Have your bills sent to us. beautiful, I don't have to look at 40 bills in the mail each month, deal with the paperwork and record keeping, and remember to mail them. 2. Give us your banking information. If you read Paytrust's privacy and security info, you'd see that they take this VERY VERY seriously 3. We'll pay the bills from your account well, do you expect them to pay the bills with their own money? 4....and bill you for doing so. and it's not expensive at all. The take care of the postage, sending the checks (so you don't have to pay to get more from your bank also), keep all of your bill records for you and give you an easy search query and sort functionality (I'm referring to Paytrust), in addition to reminds to pay the bill or you can set a max amount and it will automatically pay the bill for you. 5. If there's a screwup, good luck. Paytrust has great customer service, and will probably go to one of those live online customer service companies for additional round the clock service. 6. And until your account runs out of cash, you can keep paying your bills after you're dead! Paytrust can syncronize with your checking account and give you all sorts of notifications and tie-ins if you so desire.
There was a good story on 3COM and why they're acting the way they're acting in the NYTimes yesterday. Basically, if you look at all of the potentially profitable divisions that 3COM purchased in the past 15 yrs, you begin to wonder how they've stayed profitable so long. You have divisions that the only thing they have in common is that they have electricity flowing through them. Problem is that when you're that big with that diverse a product line with nothing in common, you're unable to keep up the pressure or lead the market in any of your divisions. Example would be Palm against Handspring. In able for a company to be able to compete well in these booming tech years, a company needs to be trim and fit and able to move decisively. Apple realized the same thing a few years ago when they started shedding products and technologies (I'm still upset they killed the Newton). But if you look at Apple, it worked. 3COM said they're now going to concentrate primarily on broadband modems, spinning off their modems, routers, and everything else that isn't directly connected to their new core product line.
"if for example China doesn't respect software copyright laws, then it's totally allowable for companies in China to copy, repackage, and resell software made, trademarked, and copyrighted in the US?
Yes, it's their land, their law, their "right". I think that's pretty self-explanatory. "
So then it should also be the right of the software company or in this case broadcasting company to make sure that their product is not viewable, useable, etc in the country that doesn't respect their copyright, correct? and if someone attempts to get around this technology, then the company in question should have the right to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to protect their copyright.
"What pisses me off is that the guy started on this idea less than a year ago, it would be TRIVIAL for TV stations to rebroadcast their stuff on the 'Net. Why aren't they? "
probably for the reason why they went after iCrave. Because if they're broadcasting on the net, then someone could just rap their content that they're broadcasting in a frameset just like you mentioned and make advertising revenue off of their content.
1. the broadcast material was copyrighted material, and should be treated as the product of the companies producing it. same as we'd treat software. 2. these companies make their money selling advertising between broadcasts. they are also liable for their broadcast. 3. if a company takes this broadcast, rebroadcasts it, and tacks on their own advertising, why would this be different than a company taking copyrighted software, repackaging it, and selling it themselves? 4. why does the fact that the company was doing this in another country make this such a complex issue? we wouldn't be tolerant of a company based in another country doing this with software we produced, would we? 5. and if US citizens were able to view these broadcasts, (I'm assuming some of these were not basic television stations but possibly cable stations, but it's not really important), is this not very similar to pirating software which is considered illegal in almost ALL countries?
In effect, iCrave was making money off of repackaging someone else's copyrighted material, and their only line of defense was that the Canadian government does not view this as pirating. I can understand why the law is there, but truthfully, this should apply only to Canadian television and not television outside of the country. If Cannucks don't view television as copyrighted material, that's fine, but they should atleast respect the copyright laws of other countries.
If this was software we were talking about, everyone in here would be up in arms (except those that feel that everything should be open-source and that there shouldn't be such a thing as licensing agreements and all software was free and that we lived in a digital utopia).
flame me if you will, but i don't understand you people that are claiming this is the greedy US capitalists screwing over other countries and stealing everyone's freedom of information.
This is a simple case of copyright law and pirating.
so under your reasoning, if for example China doesn't respect software copyright laws, then it's totally allowable for companies in China to copy, repackage, and resell software made, trademarked, and copyrighted in the US? and we shouldn't do anything about this because chinese law permits it? and what if these companies in china decide to sell the software in the US at a cheaper price than the original author of the software's price? I suppose this is good business because it's good for the consumer (lower prices are the best answer of course, irregardless of the future of the company losing profits and revenue)
this content was produced in the US and copyrighted in the US. Whether it's rebroadcast in canada or anywhere else should not matter. That is of course if the company respects copyright law.
Whether it's television programming or software, it's still pirating someone else's property.
I agree, but I think you're forgetting to mention a key point.
What iCrave did was illegal in all senses of the word. They rebroadcast original content without getting the permission of the copyright holder. That's illegal in all countries that respect copyright law as it stands today, whether it's digital or not.
It's plagiarism, it's covered under the FBI warning on videos, it's covered whenever Fox Sports broadcasts a sporting even and clearly states "not for rebroadcasting without the explicit consent of Fox Tv"
Mr. Katz, if you're trying to prove a point about loss of freedom, fine. Stop trying to make an illegal act justified by your twisted logic.
I think that the internet is changing the world, especially in third-world nations, but not for the reasons that most westerners believe. Most of us believe that the main force of the internet and the internet "revolution" is about freeing up information and giving everyone access to as much information (whether it is research, commerce, or stock feeds) at our fingertips 24 hrs a day. This doesn't necessarily hold true.
Take for instance chinese peasants living a few hours outside of a city (example not based on true story). In trying to further an economic boom in their country and believing that connecting these people to the internet would stimulate this, the country lays down communication wires and better power grids and maybe even gives them computers to access the internet. Now these people can get on the internet. Everyone in the western world thinks that these people are immediately going to be researching free-market economics and democratic governments and such because these ideals are important to us and our vision of the internet. We're forgetting one of the main uses of the internet because we take it for granted. Communication. In getting connected to the web, these fairly isolated people are finally getting reliable access to a phone and are able to now keep in contact with friends and family that live outside the realm of local travel.
Social changes will occur when this happens, but not the social changes that us internet idealists think are going to happen. Email, videoconferencing, and instant messaging will probably be the biggest hits if and when the internet comes to third-world countries.
As in all Systems, adding a new factor or changing such a strong variable will affect other parts of the system. Maybe those changes such as economic and governmental ideals will filter in, maybe they won't. Chances are that something will change... or the reaction could be similar to that of the Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn (rabbi schnearson's group) or even how the Pennsylvania Dutch approach technology. Who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
WAP is either a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant... or go to Wapforum.org
the tricky part about this is that you don't need to click on the attachment. Hotmail, just like many of the other newer email clients, recognizes it as html code, and embeds the html page into the page automatically. Unless you've changed settings, this will happen without you actually doing anything.
it's not a vbs file. it's an embeded javascript. there is no virus check run because it's not a virus and there isn't an anti-virus that checks for potentially malignant javascript. Hell, the creator only had to identify the cookie, the username, and the server the cookie was being held on, and automatically send all of this info to another account (which could have been a hotmail account)
Not everyone had to actually open the attachment.
"There is no reason to go after some of the Net's most vulnerable users -- kids -- or to establish a precedent that privacy can be wantonly violated and free Netizens intimidated every time some company, artist, or group is worried about maximizing profits. "
1. they're not violating net privacy. they haven't released the names or IP's of the individuals. They've just asked Napster to ban them from the Napster network for breaking the Napster TOS (thou shalt not break copyright law). They haven't included them (yet) in the lawsuit.
2. there is every reason to go after kids. if kids don't learn that pirating intellectual property is wrong, then they will continue to do it. yes, they should get slapped on the wrist. this is illegal and should remain illegal. and they're lucky they're only getting slapped on the wrist. if they were doing the same thing with software, they'd be getting their asses sued off and both you and I know that.
3. as with everyone else... if you're so for giving away intellectual property, why don't you put all of your books, in their full format, online in the form of free-downloadable pdf's with no encryption on them and allow everyone to download them without money, email addy's, or any guarantees?
4. this is not about maximizing profits. metallica produced an album. there are costs involved in producing the album, marketting the album, and selling the album. making this music IS THEIR JOB. that's how they pay their bills. regardless of how much money they make doing so, it is not our right to say "you've made enough money off of selling these albums, we're just going to rip some mp3's and distribute them since we should be allowed to because you charge us too much for cd's and it should all be free in the name of privacy and free digital transmissions."
5. kids knew they were doing something wrong. they were getting all the music they wanted for free. and if they had a burner, they were creating all of the mixes and cd's they wanted for the cost of $300 for the burner plus $1 for each cd. hell, they were even selling them to their friends. they knew it was illegal, or had to be... it was the biggest scam since selling "Olde Time Lemonade" that costs $2.00 for a big jar for 25 cents a glass. Don't give me that bullshit they didn't know they shouldn't be doing it.
yes, it's great that you now are given first amendment rights in terms of your email and stuff going through a network. the network is not responsible for what you post. but shouldn't the network be responsible if through their own gross negligence illegal activities are able to happen?
example 1:
what if you're a Prodigy member with a name, circle of friends, credit card info, etc in your account. now lets say that someone somehow steals your account, has access to your credit card info, says damaging things to your circle of contacts, makes threatening emails to people, and all in your name. Shouldn't the ISP, in this case Prodigy, be held liable due to gross negligence in protecting the security of their network?
example 2:
all that damn spam mail... now I'm getting tons and tons of spam mail from legit servers such as excite.com and yahoo.com and hotmail.com... it's going to a mailbox that I don't often use, but same principle applies. Shouldn't these ISP's and large companies be responsible for the information being sent through their network?
yes, I agree that they shouldn't be able to read or censor all of the information, but being able to walk away and say that they're not responsible for all of the spam sent through their servers or their lax security it NOT a good thing. If your computer is on a network that is accessable from anywhere in the world, you should be held responsible for your computer. It's just like having a gun... if your gun is taken and used in a homicide, you should be responsible for not taking the necessary precautions and preventing it from being used in a crime.
everyone that's gotten warez off of an IRC channel, raise your hand!
now, is that the fault of IRC, the IRC client you happen to be using, or the explicit fault of the users that happen to be pirating copyrighted software?
should Adobe and Microsoft and all those other companies try to shut down Internet Relay Chat? Should they sue the companies and individuals that make IRC clients? NO. They should go after the people distributing the copyrighted material. And yes, I'm sure it would be quite easy for lawyers to come in and shutdown the larger purveyors of the mp3's. I'll be there are server logs somewhere... hell, traceroute.
anyway, this is clearly illegal, but showing how idiotic lawyers, media, Dr. Dre, and the RIAA are, they're going after the wrong problem, and they're going after the symptom. This won't SOLVE anything. People will just find another way to get around paying $18 for a cd where you only really want 1 or 2 of the songs and the rest are crap. Until the music industry get's it's collective head out of its @ss, more applications are going to be created, more secret (or not so secret) trading grounds will pop up, and burners will become more and more popular.
"Is it even something that deserves worrying about?"
Cliff, are you kidding me? Do you want telemarketers collecting information on your child and indirectly on you through a web site? Don't you want to protect your child from blatant violations of your child's right to privacy because they don't understand that what they're doing is creating a profile under their name on some stranger's database? What if your kid goes to a site that asks for information about YOU? Hmmm... what if Disney, upon realizing that they were gathering information from a child, asks for their parents income (or puts it in cute terms like "what kind of car does your daddy drive?") Does this strike you as a problem?
just a question, but how many /. stories have been posted considerig this movie, both in terms of when it was coming out, details about the movie, reviews of the movie, and this whole dvd rumor crap?
/., and all concerning a movie that wasn't half as good as the original trilogy and looked like it was aimed to please 6 yr olds.
/. than the George Lucas worship.
I bet you that there have been close to a dozen different Star Wars Phantom Menace stories on
Enough is enough... this stuff should just be posted on the plethora of stupid sites dedicated to performing sexual acts on George Lucas and idol-worshipping him for a half-baked storyline which only contained about 30 min of quality footage.
Why is this story here? To be honest, I think the stock story of this past weekend was a better addition to
Lets go under a few assumptions:
1. you don't want to skimp on the site design/graphic look
2. 90% of the web is browsing on a 4.0 browser that supports CSS
3. 90% is using a minimum of a 33.6 dialup.
under these assumptions, I would like to say that you wouldn't have to skimp on anything to create a site that caters to a variety of languages with only 1 version of the code.
CSS tied into something like PHP would be your answer plain and simple.
Text could be dynamically swapped in depending on the selected language, keep your image buttons plain and layer the text above the image, etc and you're all good.
Make a site in which you could easily substitute different "palettes" into the design... not designed differently, just coded differently. It's not as difficult as many people make it out to be. CSS is a much more powerful tool in web design than many people give it credit for (most use it just for text decoration). I suggest picking up a book on it.
and here you're showing exactly why so many people lost money in this correction in the tech sector. NO, you are not evaluating what the company will be worth next year, you are giving the value of the company today. People started giving tech stocks huge valuations in price because they thought they saw these companies making huge amounts of money soon, just not now. Most other companies are evaluated on what they're doing right now, what their debt is, what their gains or losses are and will be, etc. Part-ownership in an ongoing loss? Just because a company offers stock does not mean that they're losing money. A profitable company with no debt can offer stock as simply a way of converting a share of their company into capital that they can use for their own purposes. The market valuation of that %% ownership determines how much their company is worth. The prediction you are talking about is what the analysts THINK they company will do in the coming quarter, but as we all know, there aren't always correct, and actual earnings are what really count, not predictions.
Well, we now have Apple G4's considered weapons (I don't know how, but oh well) and a gaming station from Sony not allowed to be exported because it could act as a weapons system...
So now both a desktop computer for graphic junkies (mac people are fanatics) and a gaming station for quake junkies (equally fanatical plus they have weapons training and bloodlust) are both able to purchase machines that are considered weapons.
<sarcasm>What the hell is this world coming to? Screw gun control, we're now putting dangerous hardware in the hands of crazy radicals!!!</sarcasm>
This has got to be the dumbest comment I've ever read.
No, the stock market is not just paper. It is part ownership in a company. It's part ownership in the entity that pays your bills. If that piece of paper is worth nothing, that means the company is worth nothing, which means that you won't be getting a paycheck. Now this is an over-generalization, but in effect, it's true. Stock OPTIONS are just paper. They're notes that say you have the ability to buy stock at an imaginary price, however with options you don't actually own anything yet. Yes, there you'd be a paper millionaire. However, people that actually OWN stock and are able to cash out at any given moment are more than just paper rich. They ARE rich.
Learn something about the stock market and value.
there used to be this game for the Apple IIe or IIgs where the story line was along the lines of a doctor being shrunk with some gadget and given this little nano-type-ship to pilot, and then being injected into various parts of the human body.
the missions where to clean up a certain health problem or fix certain problems, battle germs and bacteria and such, navigate the heart, etc... was really lame, but every time I hear about nanotech and healthcare, that game always pops into my head. Damn wasted braincells... atleast I can't remember the name of the game.
2000-04-03 13:47:25 IBM's plan to make 30% faster chips (articles,ibm) (declined)
/.'s sorting of story postings?
I posted this article with the link to the press release yesterday at 1 pm EST. WTF is wrong with
Hemos, I'm glad you picked the story, but if I were you, I'd look to see who's sorting your submissions.
atleast a thousand words.
maybe more if it's prOn.
maybe less if it mentions 'nsyc, backstreet boys, britney spears, or any of their ilk.
your points against the service don't make any sense.
...and bill you for doing so.
1. Have your bills sent to us.
beautiful, I don't have to look at 40 bills in the mail each month, deal with the paperwork and record keeping, and remember to mail them.
2. Give us your banking information.
If you read Paytrust's privacy and security info, you'd see that they take this VERY VERY seriously
3. We'll pay the bills from your account
well, do you expect them to pay the bills with their own money?
4.
and it's not expensive at all. The take care of the postage, sending the checks (so you don't have to pay to get more from your bank also), keep all of your bill records for you and give you an easy search query and sort functionality (I'm referring to Paytrust), in addition to reminds to pay the bill or you can set a max amount and it will automatically pay the bill for you.
5. If there's a screwup, good luck.
Paytrust has great customer service, and will probably go to one of those live online customer service companies for additional round the clock service.
6. And until your account runs out of cash, you can keep paying your bills after you're dead!
Paytrust can syncronize with your checking account and give you all sorts of notifications and tie-ins if you so desire.
There was a good story on 3COM and why they're acting the way they're acting in the NYTimes yesterday. Basically, if you look at all of the potentially profitable divisions that 3COM purchased in the past 15 yrs, you begin to wonder how they've stayed profitable so long. You have divisions that the only thing they have in common is that they have electricity flowing through them. Problem is that when you're that big with that diverse a product line with nothing in common, you're unable to keep up the pressure or lead the market in any of your divisions. Example would be Palm against Handspring. In able for a company to be able to compete well in these booming tech years, a company needs to be trim and fit and able to move decisively. Apple realized the same thing a few years ago when they started shedding products and technologies (I'm still upset they killed the Newton). But if you look at Apple, it worked. 3COM said they're now going to concentrate primarily on broadband modems, spinning off their modems, routers, and everything else that isn't directly connected to their new core product line.
but I posted this story yesterday morning... and guess what? It was rejected.
2000-03-15 14:49:09 bigger, wider, harder... (articles,ibm) (declined)
a boring story a day too late. it was already covered by excite's news service for god's sake.
and who cares about mp3's? 75 gigs of porn is much more impressive.
"if for example China doesn't respect software copyright laws, then it's totally allowable for companies in China to copy, repackage, and resell software made, trademarked, and copyrighted in the US?
Yes, it's their land, their law, their "right". I think that's pretty self-explanatory. "
So then it should also be the right of the software company or in this case broadcasting company to make sure that their product is not viewable, useable, etc in the country that doesn't respect their copyright, correct? and if someone attempts to get around this technology, then the company in question should have the right to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to protect their copyright.
"What pisses me off is that the guy started on this idea less than a year ago, it would be TRIVIAL for TV stations to rebroadcast their stuff on the 'Net. Why aren't they? "
probably for the reason why they went after iCrave. Because if they're broadcasting on the net, then someone could just rap their content that they're broadcasting in a frameset just like you mentioned and make advertising revenue off of their content.
1. the broadcast material was copyrighted material, and should be treated as the product of the companies producing it. same as we'd treat software.
2. these companies make their money selling advertising between broadcasts. they are also liable for their broadcast.
3. if a company takes this broadcast, rebroadcasts it, and tacks on their own advertising, why would this be different than a company taking copyrighted software, repackaging it, and selling it themselves?
4. why does the fact that the company was doing this in another country make this such a complex issue? we wouldn't be tolerant of a company based in another country doing this with software we produced, would we?
5. and if US citizens were able to view these broadcasts, (I'm assuming some of these were not basic television stations but possibly cable stations, but it's not really important), is this not very similar to pirating software which is considered illegal in almost ALL countries?
In effect, iCrave was making money off of repackaging someone else's copyrighted material, and their only line of defense was that the Canadian government does not view this as pirating. I can understand why the law is there, but truthfully, this should apply only to Canadian television and not television outside of the country. If Cannucks don't view television as copyrighted material, that's fine, but they should atleast respect the copyright laws of other countries.
If this was software we were talking about, everyone in here would be up in arms (except those that feel that everything should be open-source and that there shouldn't be such a thing as licensing agreements and all software was free and that we lived in a digital utopia).
flame me if you will, but i don't understand you people that are claiming this is the greedy US capitalists screwing over other countries and stealing everyone's freedom of information.
This is a simple case of copyright law and pirating.
so under your reasoning, if for example China doesn't respect software copyright laws, then it's totally allowable for companies in China to copy, repackage, and resell software made, trademarked, and copyrighted in the US? and we shouldn't do anything about this because chinese law permits it? and what if these companies in china decide to sell the software in the US at a cheaper price than the original author of the software's price? I suppose this is good business because it's good for the consumer (lower prices are the best answer of course, irregardless of the future of the company losing profits and revenue)
this content was produced in the US and copyrighted in the US. Whether it's rebroadcast in canada or anywhere else should not matter. That is of course if the company respects copyright law.
Whether it's television programming or software, it's still pirating someone else's property.
I agree, but I think you're forgetting to mention a key point.
What iCrave did was illegal in all senses of the word. They rebroadcast original content without getting the permission of the copyright holder. That's illegal in all countries that respect copyright law as it stands today, whether it's digital or not.
It's plagiarism, it's covered under the FBI warning on videos, it's covered whenever Fox Sports broadcasts a sporting even and clearly states "not for rebroadcasting without the explicit consent of Fox Tv"
Mr. Katz, if you're trying to prove a point about loss of freedom, fine. Stop trying to make an illegal act justified by your twisted logic.
I think that the internet is changing the world, especially in third-world nations, but not for the reasons that most westerners believe. Most of us believe that the main force of the internet and the internet "revolution" is about freeing up information and giving everyone access to as much information (whether it is research, commerce, or stock feeds) at our fingertips 24 hrs a day. This doesn't necessarily hold true.
Take for instance chinese peasants living a few hours outside of a city (example not based on true story). In trying to further an economic boom in their country and believing that connecting these people to the internet would stimulate this, the country lays down communication wires and better power grids and maybe even gives them computers to access the internet. Now these people can get on the internet. Everyone in the western world thinks that these people are immediately going to be researching free-market economics and democratic governments and such because these ideals are important to us and our vision of the internet. We're forgetting one of the main uses of the internet because we take it for granted. Communication. In getting connected to the web, these fairly isolated people are finally getting reliable access to a phone and are able to now keep in contact with friends and family that live outside the realm of local travel.
Social changes will occur when this happens, but not the social changes that us internet idealists think are going to happen. Email, videoconferencing, and instant messaging will probably be the biggest hits if and when the internet comes to third-world countries.
As in all Systems, adding a new factor or changing such a strong variable will affect other parts of the system. Maybe those changes such as economic and governmental ideals will filter in, maybe they won't. Chances are that something will change... or the reaction could be similar to that of the Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn (rabbi schnearson's group) or even how the Pennsylvania Dutch approach technology. Who knows.
gotta love descrimination of browsers and plug-ins.
when the judge doesn't have the plug-in, you lost.