This has more to do with spammers in general and less to do with what the government should stick their noses into with "porn protection". If they want to outlaw spam, i'm all for it. Howerver, making me use a politically and religiously biased filtering system at a public library where my tax dollars are at work strikes me as a tad beyond what they should be sticking their noses into.
This is interesting, i wasn't aware that pictures of people bumping uglies was particularly addictive. Oh but wait, that's sex, something that most people will become addicted to once they're exposed. Let's just cut off all their genetalia so that we don't have to worry about this new plague to assault our young. Heaven knows it caused enough trouble for your parents.
The fact of the matter is, you can only look at so many pictures of naked people before you realize that they basically all involve the same parts, just in different proportions.
Also, credit card fraud is expensive. It's not a matter of some vast porn industry conspiracy to "hook" people on this imaginary addiction. Porn sites scrape by when they make cash. Getting credit card companies on your case for trying to use stolen credit card numbers means that they go bankrupt. I somehow doubt most porn site operators are selfless enough to "take one for the team" to get kids hooked on porn at their expense.
clever traps used to lure kids into chat rooms and porn sites
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Kids have no money. Porn sites run by getting customers to pay money. Thus porn sites have no interest in showing kids porn. Any traps out there on the net to lure people to porn are designed for ADULTS, because adults are the ones that can then pay these people to look at naked people.
As far as chat rooms are concerned, it's pretty much kids doing their own exploring, they hardly have to be lured. Usually this is because the kids don't have parents or schools that satisfy their curiosity in regard to sex, so who can you blame there?
Ultimately, it should be the parent that decides, you are inferring that it should be the retailer that decides instead of the parent. In order for this measure to make a difference, you should look at the following criteria:
1) Would it be effective, in other words, would it decrease violent behavior.
2) Would it be enforceable.
3) Would it cause any harm.
As far as effectiveness, I would point to the URL provided in the news header that shows that there is no significant correlation between violent videogames and violent behavior. With no correlation it is seen that there is no real reason for requiring this law to be enforced by *retailers*. Some parents, on the other hand, don't approve of violent videogames and should thus exercise their right to forbid their children from buying and playing such games (although as noted below, kids can still warez or play at a friends house).
Enforcability is also somewhat problematic. If you ban violent videogames from kids, you'll only encourage them to frequent warez channels and play games at friends houses.
Lastly, there is no doubt this would cause significant harm to the videogame industry. Without being able to retail to kids, a significant portion of the industry would have to either forgoe a significant profit from kids or to lame down their games to a level suitable for Barney. This, in fact, is the real reason behind this bill. It's not to try to get violent vidoegames away from kids, it is to prevent the games being made for anybody. Politicians know better than anybody that the way to castrate an industry is to remove it's funding. This particular politician obviously doesn't like violent videogames and is trying to see that they don't get made in the first place.
I personally would rather not see this happen. I enjoy games featuring violence, since I consider violence to be integral to many significant conflicts. You don't hear legends about how Custer lost a game of checkers to the Indians, nor is it likely that the fall of Troy to trade sanctions would make much of an epic. Videogame violence also has a visceral appeal that allows me to blow of steam by fragging pixels rather than getting rude or snappy with those I deal with in RL.
I don't seriously think most people are complaining that the USA is a *bad* place to live, merely that it is not necessarily on a path to being better.
Just because you're an american doesn't mean you can't complain about freedoms and privacy being taken from you. On the contrary, I think it's your duty to stand up for your rights.
Nations must balance the rights of the people vs. the need to prevent bad people from causing mayhem. The fact that many people believe the government is neglecting the rights of the people in an (arguably misguided an ineffectual) effort to prevent crime is probably an indication that the scales have tipped too far in one direction.
America is a fine nation. I can't honestly rate it vs. other nations having lived here most of my life (the remainder being spent in Canada, which is almost identical). I believe that it is quite possibly one of the best places to live, but that does not prevent me from finding the actions of some of our "leadership" somewhat less than optimal.
The law makes it mandatory to reveal any encryption keys you have. Failure to do so can result in fine/imprisonment etc.
As a previous poster mentioned, best not be forgetting those passwords, you could be jailed for not supplying it.
So imagine a scenario, you slander somebody in the UK, under the UK's more draconian slander laws the UK government requests your files from your computer. The US law enforcement agencies then confiscate your computer and demand all encryption keys. You, not wanting to go to jail, supply them with all you can remember, however there are 3 you don't recall. You go to jail for not supplying keys....
... or, during the process of the investigation, the UK law enforcement officials let it slip (since they know you can't do anything to them) that according to your email archives you're having an affair with your wife's sister....
... or, they find evidence of slander and order you to pay restitution of 100,000 or face extradition and jail.
Mind, you as previously stated, until congress gives it the OK, this is still somewhat conjecture, but just encrypting anything is not necessarily the answer.
Actually, "knowledge is power" is not anthropomorphic, because it does not imply that the "knowledge" wants or needs to be powerful. Conversly, "information wants to be free" attributes the desire of freedom to the information, not those seeking it.
anthropomorphism (nthr-p-môrfzm)
n.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena
Granted, the assertion is not proved. However, while it is provable that knowledge does not equate to power, it is generally understood that it is difficult (but not impossible) to be powerful without knowledge, unless we're dealing with strictly physical issues (and sometimes even then).
If we were to be complete semantic tightwads we'd do better to say that "Pursuit of power is aided by greater knowledge".
Some of your arguments are worthy of discussion, others are not. For one thing, intellectual property has traditionally included fair use of any product purchased by an end user. This fair use takes many forms: making copies, testing the security by trying to break it, reverse engineering it to understand how it works, quoting small sections (for written works), and posting reviews etc.
This is a point that you did not raise in your discussion of IP. The DMCA is loathsome not because (or at least, not just because) it is an IP law. More accurately it is not desirable because it completely removes the right to fair use.
While I am leery of an outright ban on intellectual property (as in, the removal of all it's protections), there are also some very problematic side issues to trying to do any kind of enforcement of it.
Essentially many forms of proposed IP protection significantly increase police powers of both interception and seizure in relation to IP. In fact, many forms if IP protection take the form of extreme censorship (just look at the Church of Scientology). Is IP protection worth living with censorship? I personally think not.
Point taken, if that is indeed the crux of the article then I missed it. However I think it's worth debating whether napster or mp3.com actually ever did (or will) make a profit...
Given their mention of gnutella though, I suspect that they are merely not considering the full set of download tools available, not just the for profit ones.
Unlike the metaphor of drugs, it is not currently illegal to have copies of songs, it is merely illegal to distribute those copies. A system like freenet practially guarantees anonymity of distribution so that is hardly a concern.
Music will continue to be easy to get, because the programs that allow you to download it easily will continue to exist.
Incidentally the use of the term FUD has very little correlation to the user's intelligence. It's just a term like any other.
My use of it was directed at the writers of the article who, intentionally or otherwise, were making things sound bleaker than they actually are. As such, the term is appropriately applied.
This article is pure bunk. I've lost track of how many file sharing programs I've seen announced in recent months. The internet is a system designed to share information. The only way to prevent information (like mp3s) from being shared is to shut down the entire net.
It was pretty apparent to me that the big names in early file sharing (Napster, MP3.com etc) would go down. They had pretty, bright red targets painted on their foreheads.
However, now that it is started there will be no stopping it. You can filter for music and people will just encrypt it before sending. You can shut down central servers and people will go peer to peer. You can publish FUD about the death of music sharing and people will ridicule you.
Hollywood basically continued to act likes its promotion of alcohol was not only harmless, but like it was Hollywood's God-Given Right to promote alcohol.
Just as Hollywood today thinks its a God-Given Right to promote sexual promiscuity and open-activity...
Being an atheist, I can't vouch for whatever rights a god might grant to Hollywood. However, first amendment free speech restrictions do give anybody, including Hollywood, the right to talk about whatever the hell they want to.
It's the advent of censorship, ratings etc. that has more or less gagged Hollywood from showing more explicit or disturbing material. To the point where some people actually believe that Hollywood does *not* have the right to make movies with any content they wish, which is undoubtedly the intent of the censorship.
This story is slightly misleading in it's references to NASA. The computer system is the FPGA system designed by Starbridge Systems. There were were previous mentions of the HAL system in the following articles:
So a little theft is OK? I'm sorry if you take a story someone else wrote and put it online without the OK of the author it is theft, it does not matter if the damages are one dollar or one million dollars its still theft and its still *WRONG*. Why is this a hard concept?
I think the original poster was trying to make the point that there is no proof of harm. If somebody was reprinting his books and selling them for profit then he could demonstrate harm (in terms of profits denied to him). However, copying books online for free has the same effect as borrowing a book from a library:
1) Increases the # of people exposed to the writer's work.
2) Increases the chance that the writer's work will be recommended (assuming it's not crap)
3) Increases the chance that the reader of the work will buy a book by that writer (assuming they liked the book).
How has he been harmed by this? Online books are free publicity.
Calling reading the book online "theft" is already making the assumption that the book has been "stolen". However that assumption is debatable, and given the availability of the book from a library, complete irrelevant to the outcome.
His point is simple, copying a book is the same whether in printed or electronic form. If someone can read it online they _may_ buy a copy, they might just print it out.
Actually, most people prefer to read stuff in book form. While folks can print it, I don't fancy feeding several hundred pages into my printer and waiting for an hour or so for it to print (not to mention that then it's not free since I'm using up paper and printer toner/ink).
Books that I have read online and not had in my possession in physical form = 2. Both of which happened to be in the public domain anyway(the first two tarzan books by Edgar Rice Burroughs for the curious).
Number of books I have read in whole or part online = approximately 12.
We can all get high and mighty but at the end of the day he has a point: He does this for a living, how would _you_ feel if someone copied your work just before you handed it in to the client and got the cash instead of you.
This is a faulty analogy. People who publish his works online aren't getting paid. If they were then I would support Mr. Ellison's stance completely. If somebody is to be paid, then either he or his publisher deserve to be the ones receiving the payment.
However, there is no significant indication that publishing books on the net reduces sales. Any book that I have liked I desire to own from a legitimate source. Any book that I suspect that I won't like I usually check for in the library first anyway (if online versions are easily available I will often browse at least part of the book online).
I recommend visiting the Baen free library for a different, and IMO more rational, take on the issue.
Yes, its obvious to most slashdot readers that there are numerous ways to get around this... but this isn't really targeting the tech-heads, they are going after the casual user with this, and it might just work for that.
The casual user doesn't have to know how to do this, all they have to do is download the latest rip off the net. There will be enough people with technical expertise out there providing rips that the casual moocher just has to know how to use the napster du jour.
That's somewhat irrelevant. Id won't do this simply because it would destroy the community that they are trying to build. FPS games don't survive on their own merits anymore, for that you need a thriving community of map and mod makers. Of those with time to actually devote to map and mod making, I'd guess that a minimum of 40% are folks without a lot of money to buy games like quake. Killing off their quake would be foolhardy and I'm certain that Id is aware of that.
So your example is apples and oranges.
To answer your questions, though, yes people would bitch (just about anything will make some people bitch) although not with justification. However, privacy would probably not be an issue since an update of this nature wouldn't actually invade privacy.
The greek cucumber sauce (forgive the abomination of my spelling of it) tsatsiki is one of the most foul spelling things in this world once it has gone bad. I recommend that.
Might have to wait for nano-scrubbers. To the best of my knowledge stem cells won't reduce vein/artery blockage. Over time the circulatory system would probably get blocked up. Might be time to start that low cholesterol diet... could add another century or two to your life:)
Actually, I would predict that market forces would probably doom the DVI standard. Just as the (original) DIV-X players enjoyed an early demise, so will go DVI.
When it comes down to it, those who care will buy monitors that have non-DVI inputs, and there will be a significant market for these devices. This is especially true as computer competence levels rise within the general populace (as it is currently in most universities).
Right now this is just Intel trying to be smarmy with the IP nazis, once they realize it'll lose them money they'll drop it.
Actually, I'd bet that Boeing and GM don't like UCITA because it voids the software makers of all liability. Both those companies use computer aided design for engineering. If the software is buggy, they don't want to be the ones getting shafted (or at least, they don't want to be the only one getting shafted).
Slashdot Mirror
This has more to do with spammers in general and less to do with what the government should stick their noses into with "porn protection". If they want to outlaw spam, i'm all for it. Howerver, making me use a politically and religiously biased filtering system at a public library where my tax dollars are at work strikes me as a tad beyond what they should be sticking their noses into.
This is interesting, i wasn't aware that pictures of people bumping uglies was particularly addictive. Oh but wait, that's sex, something that most people will become addicted to once they're exposed. Let's just cut off all their genetalia so that we don't have to worry about this new plague to assault our young. Heaven knows it caused enough trouble for your parents.
The fact of the matter is, you can only look at so many pictures of naked people before you realize that they basically all involve the same parts, just in different proportions.
Also, credit card fraud is expensive. It's not a matter of some vast porn industry conspiracy to "hook" people on this imaginary addiction. Porn sites scrape by when they make cash. Getting credit card companies on your case for trying to use stolen credit card numbers means that they go bankrupt. I somehow doubt most porn site operators are selfless enough to "take one for the team" to get kids hooked on porn at their expense.
Don't be an idiot and think before you post.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Kids have no money. Porn sites run by getting customers to pay money. Thus porn sites have no interest in showing kids porn. Any traps out there on the net to lure people to porn are designed for ADULTS, because adults are the ones that can then pay these people to look at naked people.
As far as chat rooms are concerned, it's pretty much kids doing their own exploring, they hardly have to be lured. Usually this is because the kids don't have parents or schools that satisfy their curiosity in regard to sex, so who can you blame there?
Sheesh and I thought I was a nitpicker. Cliffyb rocks!
Ultimately, it should be the parent that decides, you are inferring that it should be the retailer that decides instead of the parent. In order for this measure to make a difference, you should look at the following criteria:
1) Would it be effective, in other words, would it decrease violent behavior.
2) Would it be enforceable.
3) Would it cause any harm.
As far as effectiveness, I would point to the URL provided in the news header that shows that there is no significant correlation between violent videogames and violent behavior. With no correlation it is seen that there is no real reason for requiring this law to be enforced by *retailers*. Some parents, on the other hand, don't approve of violent videogames and should thus exercise their right to forbid their children from buying and playing such games (although as noted below, kids can still warez or play at a friends house).
Enforcability is also somewhat problematic. If you ban violent videogames from kids, you'll only encourage them to frequent warez channels and play games at friends houses.
Lastly, there is no doubt this would cause significant harm to the videogame industry. Without being able to retail to kids, a significant portion of the industry would have to either forgoe a significant profit from kids or to lame down their games to a level suitable for Barney. This, in fact, is the real reason behind this bill. It's not to try to get violent vidoegames away from kids, it is to prevent the games being made for anybody. Politicians know better than anybody that the way to castrate an industry is to remove it's funding. This particular politician obviously doesn't like violent videogames and is trying to see that they don't get made in the first place.
I personally would rather not see this happen. I enjoy games featuring violence, since I consider violence to be integral to many significant conflicts. You don't hear legends about how Custer lost a game of checkers to the Indians, nor is it likely that the fall of Troy to trade sanctions would make much of an epic. Videogame violence also has a visceral appeal that allows me to blow of steam by fragging pixels rather than getting rude or snappy with those I deal with in RL.
I don't seriously think most people are complaining that the USA is a *bad* place to live, merely that it is not necessarily on a path to being better.
Just because you're an american doesn't mean you can't complain about freedoms and privacy being taken from you. On the contrary, I think it's your duty to stand up for your rights.
Nations must balance the rights of the people vs. the need to prevent bad people from causing mayhem. The fact that many people believe the government is neglecting the rights of the people in an (arguably misguided an ineffectual) effort to prevent crime is probably an indication that the scales have tipped too far in one direction.
America is a fine nation. I can't honestly rate it vs. other nations having lived here most of my life (the remainder being spent in Canada, which is almost identical). I believe that it is quite possibly one of the best places to live, but that does not prevent me from finding the actions of some of our "leadership" somewhat less than optimal.
The law makes it mandatory to reveal any encryption keys you have. Failure to do so can result in fine/imprisonment etc.
As a previous poster mentioned, best not be forgetting those passwords, you could be jailed for not supplying it.
So imagine a scenario, you slander somebody in the UK, under the UK's more draconian slander laws the UK government requests your files from your computer. The US law enforcement agencies then confiscate your computer and demand all encryption keys. You, not wanting to go to jail, supply them with all you can remember, however there are 3 you don't recall. You go to jail for not supplying keys....
... or, during the process of the investigation, the UK law enforcement officials let it slip (since they know you can't do anything to them) that according to your email archives you're having an affair with your wife's sister....
... or, they find evidence of slander and order you to pay restitution of 100,000 or face extradition and jail.
Mind, you as previously stated, until congress gives it the OK, this is still somewhat conjecture, but just encrypting anything is not necessarily the answer.
*also jumping on the nitpicking bandwagon*
Actually, "knowledge is power" is not anthropomorphic, because it does not imply that the "knowledge" wants or needs to be powerful. Conversly, "information wants to be free" attributes the desire of freedom to the information, not those seeking it.
anthropomorphism (nthr-p-môrfzm)
n.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena
Granted, the assertion is not proved. However, while it is provable that knowledge does not equate to power, it is generally understood that it is difficult (but not impossible) to be powerful without knowledge, unless we're dealing with strictly physical issues (and sometimes even then).
If we were to be complete semantic tightwads we'd do better to say that "Pursuit of power is aided by greater knowledge".
A boycott of napster is pretty much redundant at this point. They've managed to drive off most of their customers without any outside help.
Some of your arguments are worthy of discussion, others are not. For one thing, intellectual property has traditionally included fair use of any product purchased by an end user. This fair use takes many forms: making copies, testing the security by trying to break it, reverse engineering it to understand how it works, quoting small sections (for written works), and posting reviews etc.
This is a point that you did not raise in your discussion of IP. The DMCA is loathsome not because (or at least, not just because) it is an IP law. More accurately it is not desirable because it completely removes the right to fair use.
While I am leery of an outright ban on intellectual property (as in, the removal of all it's protections), there are also some very problematic side issues to trying to do any kind of enforcement of it.
Essentially many forms of proposed IP protection significantly increase police powers of both interception and seizure in relation to IP. In fact, many forms if IP protection take the form of extreme censorship (just look at the Church of Scientology). Is IP protection worth living with censorship? I personally think not.
Point taken, if that is indeed the crux of the article then I missed it. However I think it's worth debating whether napster or mp3.com actually ever did (or will) make a profit...
Given their mention of gnutella though, I suspect that they are merely not considering the full set of download tools available, not just the for profit ones.
Unlike the metaphor of drugs, it is not currently illegal to have copies of songs, it is merely illegal to distribute those copies. A system like freenet practially guarantees anonymity of distribution so that is hardly a concern.
Music will continue to be easy to get, because the programs that allow you to download it easily will continue to exist.
Incidentally the use of the term FUD has very little correlation to the user's intelligence. It's just a term like any other.
My use of it was directed at the writers of the article who, intentionally or otherwise, were making things sound bleaker than they actually are. As such, the term is appropriately applied.
This article is pure bunk. I've lost track of how many file sharing programs I've seen announced in recent months. The internet is a system designed to share information. The only way to prevent information (like mp3s) from being shared is to shut down the entire net.
It was pretty apparent to me that the big names in early file sharing (Napster, MP3.com etc) would go down. They had pretty, bright red targets painted on their foreheads.
However, now that it is started there will be no stopping it. You can filter for music and people will just encrypt it before sending. You can shut down central servers and people will go peer to peer. You can publish FUD about the death of music sharing and people will ridicule you.
Bah, just go to freenet.
Just as Hollywood today thinks its a God-Given Right to promote sexual promiscuity and open-activity...
Being an atheist, I can't vouch for whatever rights a god might grant to Hollywood. However, first amendment free speech restrictions do give anybody, including Hollywood, the right to talk about whatever the hell they want to.
It's the advent of censorship, ratings etc. that has more or less gagged Hollywood from showing more explicit or disturbing material. To the point where some people actually believe that Hollywood does *not* have the right to make movies with any content they wish, which is undoubtedly the intent of the censorship.
What Happened To Starbridge's Supercomputer
Reconfigurable Supercomputers
Starbridge systems named it hal, nasa bought it from them.
So a little theft is OK? I'm sorry if you take a story someone else wrote and put it online without the OK of the author it is theft, it does not matter if the damages are one dollar or one million dollars its still theft and its still *WRONG*. Why is this a hard concept?
I think the original poster was trying to make the point that there is no proof of harm. If somebody was reprinting his books and selling them for profit then he could demonstrate harm (in terms of profits denied to him). However, copying books online for free has the same effect as borrowing a book from a library:
1) Increases the # of people exposed to the writer's work.
2) Increases the chance that the writer's work will be recommended (assuming it's not crap)
3) Increases the chance that the reader of the work will buy a book by that writer (assuming they liked the book).
How has he been harmed by this? Online books are free publicity.
Calling reading the book online "theft" is already making the assumption that the book has been "stolen". However that assumption is debatable, and given the availability of the book from a library, complete irrelevant to the outcome.
His point is simple, copying a book is the same whether in printed or electronic form. If someone can read it online they _may_ buy a copy, they might just print it out.
Actually, most people prefer to read stuff in book form. While folks can print it, I don't fancy feeding several hundred pages into my printer and waiting for an hour or so for it to print (not to mention that then it's not free since I'm using up paper and printer toner/ink).
Books that I have read online and not had in my possession in physical form = 2. Both of which happened to be in the public domain anyway(the first two tarzan books by Edgar Rice Burroughs for the curious).
Number of books I have read in whole or part online = approximately 12.
We can all get high and mighty but at the end of the day he has a point: He does this for a living, how would _you_ feel if someone copied your work just before you handed it in to the client and got the cash instead of you.
This is a faulty analogy. People who publish his works online aren't getting paid. If they were then I would support Mr. Ellison's stance completely. If somebody is to be paid, then either he or his publisher deserve to be the ones receiving the payment.
However, there is no significant indication that publishing books on the net reduces sales. Any book that I have liked I desire to own from a legitimate source. Any book that I suspect that I won't like I usually check for in the library first anyway (if online versions are easily available I will often browse at least part of the book online).
I recommend visiting the Baen free library for a different, and IMO more rational, take on the issue.
Yes, its obvious to most slashdot readers that there are numerous ways to get around this... but this isn't really targeting the tech-heads, they are going after the casual user with this, and it might just work for that.
The casual user doesn't have to know how to do this, all they have to do is download the latest rip off the net. There will be enough people with technical expertise out there providing rips that the casual moocher just has to know how to use the napster du jour.
That's somewhat irrelevant. Id won't do this simply because it would destroy the community that they are trying to build. FPS games don't survive on their own merits anymore, for that you need a thriving community of map and mod makers. Of those with time to actually devote to map and mod making, I'd guess that a minimum of 40% are folks without a lot of money to buy games like quake. Killing off their quake would be foolhardy and I'm certain that Id is aware of that.
So your example is apples and oranges.
To answer your questions, though, yes people would bitch (just about anything will make some people bitch) although not with justification. However, privacy would probably not be an issue since an update of this nature wouldn't actually invade privacy.
Doh!
:)
Bad spellers of the world untie!
The greek cucumber sauce (forgive the abomination of my spelling of it) tsatsiki is one of the most foul spelling things in this world once it has gone bad. I recommend that.
Might have to wait for nano-scrubbers. To the best of my knowledge stem cells won't reduce vein/artery blockage. Over time the circulatory system would probably get blocked up. Might be time to start that low cholesterol diet... could add another century or two to your life :)
Actually, I would predict that market forces would probably doom the DVI standard. Just as the (original) DIV-X players enjoyed an early demise, so will go DVI.
When it comes down to it, those who care will buy monitors that have non-DVI inputs, and there will be a significant market for these devices. This is especially true as computer competence levels rise within the general populace (as it is currently in most universities).
Right now this is just Intel trying to be smarmy with the IP nazis, once they realize it'll lose them money they'll drop it.
Actually, I'd bet that Boeing and GM don't like UCITA because it voids the software makers of all liability. Both those companies use computer aided design for engineering. If the software is buggy, they don't want to be the ones getting shafted (or at least, they don't want to be the only one getting shafted).