This isn't the issue here, the issue is that many aspiring artists and filmmakers gets robbed of their copy rights, without knowing they are - as they didn't read the (changed) TOS.
By uploading your material to YouTube you automatically write over the rights of your material to them.
So yes, YouTube is a funny service - I use it every day to find funny clips, but I'd never upload anything there, just because I simply don't want any copyright problems in the future and I don't want anyone to profit from my material just because they happen to host it.
Is that AOL is the very same company Google are co-operating with.
Even if Google are having totally different routines and policies regarding their userdata (I have no idea to be honest), this will reflect negatively upon Google inc.
Use the rewrite mod in Apache and make sure that Google and others can't hotlink the material presented on the website in question.
Besides this one being publicity-stunt, it's quite stupid - as perfect 10 magazine can get more visitors by having some of their "freebies" listed in Google. (even though this whole thing gave perfect 10 more publicity since last november than ever, I guess)
Google are like any other capitalistic company: they want to make money. Selling out their "good-company" image silently in China is a way to make money and entering a new market.
Let's face it, how much do we know about what's going on in China?
Btw, isn't Google buying up a lot of black-fibre across the United states? Maybe they will launch their own ISP, across their own network?
Many ISPs block port 25 for outgoing traffic, and I think this is a good thing, BUT - you should as a single user be able to sign a paper where you take full responsibility of what happens with your computer and then port 25 (and others) should be opened.
I'd say that Coca Cola and McDonalds are two of the world's most famous brands, and that Apple - despite this slightly angled survey is not and will never be as popular as CC and McD.
As far as IT-related brands I'd say that both Microsoft (+Windows) and Google surpasses Apple when it comes to being known by the regular Joe / Jane.
As an ending note; Why is it that when a user that is new to the Internet wants to get an email-account, *he thinks "Hotmail"?!
"Serious" companies like Novell offers their open source software services worldwide through Suse and they can give you both suits, software and education...
I don't know if Google is "evil" or not, but they did make a deal with the chinese government which meant that Google censors the search results of the chinese version of Google's search engine. So... evil or not, I do not know - do you?!
(One thing I find interesting is that Google doesn't mention the above behaviour when they speak about their own corporate ethics... Sometimes silence speak more than words, at least in my eyes and in this particular case. Note that Google isn't alone in doing "less good" things in order to get into the chinese market, alas I'm not pointing any fingers at Google in particular.)
Did visual route (for example) release their product before McAfee? I don't see how one can get a patent on mapping the information from a traceroute, but that's just me. I am personally against software patents, due to issues connected to "prior art".
Isn't it a bit ironic that you aim what you wrote to a company like IBM that is making their daily bread on selling services like you talk about to other companies?! *yikes*
The issue is that not everyone have neither the control over the server they use, that may be shared by other people, including those using the same server to send out spam.
Not everyone have the skills that you have, etc etc.
Those who are customers of a webhotel expects their provider to handle these issues, when they don't - these customers may be forced to change providers, which costs them money and time.
In the servers I work with, the majority of spam comes from servers based in the US, and very often from those on the UUnet networks. What I do with every server that send out spam is to block them in the mailserver, after doing a check-up on them before of course. This have decreased the incoming&visible spam dramatically.
Blocking entire countries may seem like a good solution at first, but then again; if you are taking care of customers on your servers (or even yourself and your business), those customers will get a limited service and even miss information due to this insensitive rule. So... the only thing left is to work with different rbls and do manual labour in order to give your customers (and yourself) the best possible email-experience.
This is what they are doing, and I believe it's OK - as, let's face the facts; the average Internet-user isn't that tech-savvy, and this render their PC becoming a zombie for spammers, hackers etc. The same PCs that bomb your mailservers with unwanted traffic.
Though it's only OK if they leave the option for the customer to remove the block of port 25.
I am for complete access to the Internet too, but in this case I am realistic about the issue.
I agree with you, now Lycos have made themselves one of the top10 sites / companies to DDOS to kingdom come. Even if Lycos and their branded sites have x-Gigabits of connectivity, I doubt that their network would stand up against the zombie-armies the more powerful spammers can gather (for the right pay, of course).
I am afraid that users of Lycos' service may experience a slower or non-existent service in a near future. I hope I'm wrong though...
The swedish site was the pilot-project. On http://www.hypocrisy.nu/archives/2004/12/lycos_ant ispam.html I write the following; "Lycos' "Make love not spam"-campaign, originally tested on the Swedish ISP-market as a PR-campaign in collaboration between Starring (fd Moonwalk Stockholm) and Lycos-owned Spray.se", so now you now that.:)
I know it is very hard, and I also know that UUnet hosts *many* spammers in their networks (and re-sellers). But.. if they don't care about their connectivity, why should they care about some thousands creating a ddos of some of their customers, and by this slowing their networks down?! If the spammers have to pay them more, and do this - where is the benefit of this campaign from Lycos?! I fail to see that... (This wasn't meant as an attack on you, but as a general statement.)
I guess that the only good way to get spammers out of business is to change peoples' attitudes and knowledge, and make them never buy products from these spammers or their affiliates.
What we in the IT-business can do is to avoid ISPs that (indirectly) sponsors the above activity.
What if you have your website on the same ISP as a spammer and the majority of your outgoing emails gets filtered away, 'cause your ISP hosts spammers?!
Even if you change ISP, you have wasted both money and time on garbage. No loadbalance system can remedy the above.
Here in Sweden, most ISPs blocks outgoing traffic on port 25, unless it goes to their SMTP-servers. This is a good approach to handling the spam-problem more efficient. What the ISPs fail to do is to allow the customer to have their own outgoing mailserver if they choose to have this, and perhaps write a special agreement where the customer agrees to keep their systems secure etc.
As another comment said; It's hard to check if a ISP hosts spammers, but when it comes to the outgoing servers that some spammers use under the "can spam act", yes - you can check this. I, for eaxmple, check my mailserver's block-list.
Slashdot Mirror
I must say that this was possibly the most accurate analysis today ;)
This isn't the issue here, the issue is that many aspiring artists and filmmakers gets robbed of their copy rights, without knowing they are - as they didn't read the (changed) TOS.
By uploading your material to YouTube you automatically write over the rights of your material to them. So yes, YouTube is a funny service - I use it every day to find funny clips, but I'd never upload anything there, just because I simply don't want any copyright problems in the future and I don't want anyone to profit from my material just because they happen to host it.
Is that AOL is the very same company Google are co-operating with. Even if Google are having totally different routines and policies regarding their userdata (I have no idea to be honest), this will reflect negatively upon Google inc.
Use the rewrite mod in Apache and make sure that Google and others can't hotlink the material presented on the website in question.
Besides this one being publicity-stunt, it's quite stupid - as perfect 10 magazine can get more visitors by having some of their "freebies" listed in Google. (even though this whole thing gave perfect 10 more publicity since last november than ever, I guess)
The term "Cunning Stunts" comes to mind here...
Free packaging material? Ah, I've never heard of it - but then again; I'm in Sweden! ;)
Google are like any other capitalistic company: they want to make money. Selling out their "good-company" image silently in China is a way to make money and entering a new market.
Let's face it, how much do we know about what's going on in China?
Btw, isn't Google buying up a lot of black-fibre across the United states? Maybe they will launch their own ISP, across their own network?
Many ISPs block port 25 for outgoing traffic, and I think this is a good thing, BUT - you should as a single user be able to sign a paper where you take full responsibility of what happens with your computer and then port 25 (and others) should be opened.
:(
The thing is that the above isn't very common!
The site was login-locked, but nothing bugmenot won't resolve! ;-)
Should these documents be available to the public?
I'd say that Coca Cola and McDonalds are two of the world's most famous brands, and that Apple - despite this slightly angled survey is not and will never be as popular as CC and McD.
As far as IT-related brands I'd say that both Microsoft (+Windows) and Google surpasses Apple when it comes to being known by the regular Joe / Jane.
As an ending note; Why is it that when a user that is new to the Internet wants to get an email-account, *he thinks "Hotmail"?!
"Serious" companies like Novell offers their open source software services worldwide through Suse and they can give you both suits, software and education...
I don't know if Google is "evil" or not, but they did make a deal with the chinese government which meant that Google censors the search results of the chinese version of Google's search engine. So... evil or not, I do not know - do you?!
(One thing I find interesting is that Google doesn't mention the above behaviour when they speak about their own corporate ethics... Sometimes silence speak more than words, at least in my eyes and in this particular case. Note that Google isn't alone in doing "less good" things in order to get into the chinese market, alas I'm not pointing any fingers at Google in particular.)
Did visual route (for example) release their product before McAfee? I don't see how one can get a patent on mapping the information from a traceroute, but that's just me. I am personally against software patents, due to issues connected to "prior art".
Isn't it a bit ironic that you aim what you wrote to a company like IBM that is making their daily bread on selling services like you talk about to other companies?! *yikes*
EA Games is the king of the hill - what can one say?! Oh well... maybe there will be a new Sega Rally?! :-)
The issue is that not everyone have neither the control over the server they use, that may be shared by other people, including those using the same server to send out spam.
:)
Not everyone have the skills that you have, etc etc.
Those who are customers of a webhotel expects their provider to handle these issues, when they don't - these customers may be forced to change providers, which costs them money and time.
See the issue now?
In the servers I work with, the majority of spam comes from servers based in the US, and very often from those on the UUnet networks. What I do with every server that send out spam is to block them in the mailserver, after doing a check-up on them before of course. This have decreased the incoming&visible spam dramatically.
Blocking entire countries may seem like a good solution at first, but then again; if you are taking care of customers on your servers (or even yourself and your business), those customers will get a limited service and even miss information due to this insensitive rule. So... the only thing left is to work with different rbls and do manual labour in order to give your customers (and yourself) the best possible email-experience.
This is what they are doing, and I believe it's OK - as, let's face the facts; the average Internet-user isn't that tech-savvy, and this render their PC becoming a zombie for spammers, hackers etc. The same PCs that bomb your mailservers with unwanted traffic.
Though it's only OK if they leave the option for the customer to remove the block of port 25.
I am for complete access to the Internet too, but in this case I am realistic about the issue.
"I can see some ISPs actually liking the idea. More money for them."
Interesting point of view!
Hello, fellow Starwars fan ;-)
I agree with you, now Lycos have made themselves one of the top10 sites / companies to DDOS to kingdom come. Even if Lycos and their branded sites have x-Gigabits of connectivity, I doubt that their network would stand up against the zombie-armies the more powerful spammers can gather (for the right pay, of course).
I am afraid that users of Lycos' service may experience a slower or non-existent service in a near future. I hope I'm wrong though...
The swedish site was the pilot-project. On http://www.hypocrisy.nu/archives/2004/12/lycos_ant ispam.html I write the following; "Lycos' "Make love not spam"-campaign, originally tested on the Swedish ISP-market as a PR-campaign in collaboration between Starring (fd Moonwalk Stockholm) and Lycos-owned Spray.se", so now you now that. :)
I know it is very hard, and I also know that UUnet hosts *many* spammers in their networks (and re-sellers). But.. if they don't care about their connectivity, why should they care about some thousands creating a ddos of some of their customers, and by this slowing their networks down?! If the spammers have to pay them more, and do this - where is the benefit of this campaign from Lycos?! I fail to see that... (This wasn't meant as an attack on you, but as a general statement.)
I guess that the only good way to get spammers out of business is to change peoples' attitudes and knowledge, and make them never buy products from these spammers or their affiliates.
What we in the IT-business can do is to avoid ISPs that (indirectly) sponsors the above activity.
What if you have your website on the same ISP as a spammer and the majority of your outgoing emails gets filtered away, 'cause your ISP hosts spammers?!
Even if you change ISP, you have wasted both money and time on garbage. No loadbalance system can remedy the above.
Here in Sweden, most ISPs blocks outgoing traffic on port 25, unless it goes to their SMTP-servers. This is a good approach to handling the spam-problem more efficient. What the ISPs fail to do is to allow the customer to have their own outgoing mailserver if they choose to have this, and perhaps write a special agreement where the customer agrees to keep their systems secure etc.
As another comment said; It's hard to check if a ISP hosts spammers, but when it comes to the outgoing servers that some spammers use under the "can spam act", yes - you can check this. I, for eaxmple, check my mailserver's block-list.