The WSJ's shoddy reporting has been refuted on both the Google Public Policy blog and Lessig's blog. The article is referring to CDNs, which do not figure into any kind of net neutrality calculus. Why the WSJ wanted to run this inaccurate Obama-smear article, I can only speculate (perhaps Murdoch had something to do with this, eh?).
All of this is cool, I suppose, but there is a tool that I use now called ack that has taken care of most of my find / grep / xargs/ exec / whatever needs: http://petdance.com/ack/
I've seen this thing a lot but my bash-1337ness is insufficient to comprehend why this produces a forkbomb... is there a good explanation of this anywhere? (man bash does not count)
Note that the Democrats are more in bed with the media industries, so I think this nightmare scenario might be closer to realization if a democrat were elected. See the Author's Note from Stallman's "The Right to Read": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Also see traceroute.org to do a traceroute to anywhere from participating locations (although it's not immediately clear which ISP all of these sites are using). http://traceroute.org/#USA
"This just proves the Internets are a creation of the liberal elite! The Internets does not respect traditional Judeo-Christian values! It's time we declared war on the Internets!"
See this post, defending Obama's vote for telecom immunity: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hysteria.html
Furthermore, he supports enforcement of copyright law (always has, although is concerned about its reach and absolutely against its retroactive extension).
However, I don't know of any hospitals or other critical infrastructure that is hosting a torrent tracker. It seems like a bit of FUD for Jim Louderback to say "But what if MediaDefender discovers a tracker inside a hospital, fire department or 911 center?". What MediaDefender did was bad enough (for once in my life, I'm rooting for the FBI here) -- it's not necessary to resort to these logical scare tactics.
"Legitimate" seems like a word that both sides in this case (and in most "intellectual property" disputes) want to claim as their own. The person saying it attempts to sidestep the entire debate of what makes a use "legitimate" (for whom, how, etc.) and hopes that the audience just assumes that he objectively knows what a legitimate use is (and agrees with his unspoken definition). Of course, those questions go to the heart of the real issue.
Great, now we're going to be hearing about how one special interest group or another has such-and-such problem with GTAIV for the next year. And it's all, unfortunately, going to qualify as news (for nerds).
TFSummary (and TFA) leaves out the most important part about this news: that the album is free as in freedom, not just free as in beer. It's released under a creative commons license, which means that he (or the **AA) can't go after you if you share the album online. AFAIK, this is the first high-profile album release under a CC license (I don't believe Radiohead's was under a CC license).
Umm, I take it you missed the news about Apple offering DRM free music from the Apple store? No, I saw that -- it's a minority of music in the store. Most is still DRMed, I believe.
Considering the state of online music when Apple first offered that solution, it was hugely user friendly. You keep making these points about how Apple made such great strides in certain areas compared to what was previously offered in that space. While all of these claims are valid, it's still missing the big picture. Before anyone bought music online, you could burn a CD any number of times. Sure, iTunes "allows" re-ripping of the CD to make a copy, but is that a step forward or a step backward? A step forward from no burning at all (as you rightly point out), but certainly a step backward from the pre-DRM music environment. Similarly, Amazon has no DRM in its store but the iTunes store still does. Whether or not Steve Jobs' business decisions were breakthroughs at the time is a moot point for someone who is considering where to buy their online music today. Hell, even Amazon's watermarks are a step backwards for a consumer compared to buying a CD.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, if you're a command line fan: http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/
The submitter is a real 1337 Hax0r. Ever hear of strings? Vi? I know the Apple apologists are out on full force on this thread (as usual -- 'omg Steve Jobs is personalizing my tracks for me, how thoughtful!'), but I have to disagree with them -- http://bulletinthehead-wakeup.blogspot.com/2007/05/apple-turning-into-law-enforcement-one.html And yes, this is an old story.
But aren't those the RIAA execs' kids?
The WSJ's shoddy reporting has been refuted on both the Google Public Policy blog and Lessig's blog. The article is referring to CDNs, which do not figure into any kind of net neutrality calculus. Why the WSJ wanted to run this inaccurate Obama-smear article, I can only speculate (perhaps Murdoch had something to do with this, eh?).
Ah, thanks.
AMEN! !$ is pure awesomeness... more in man history
All of this is cool, I suppose, but there is a tool that I use now called ack that has taken care of most of my find / grep / xargs/ exec / whatever needs: http://petdance.com/ack/
I've seen this thing a lot but my bash-1337ness is insufficient to comprehend why this produces a forkbomb... is there a good explanation of this anywhere? (man bash does not count)
Note that the Democrats are more in bed with the media industries, so I think this nightmare scenario might be closer to realization if a democrat were elected. See the Author's Note from Stallman's "The Right to Read": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Also see traceroute.org to do a traceroute to anywhere from participating locations (although it's not immediately clear which ISP all of these sites are using). http://traceroute.org/#USA
Isn't the whole internet widely used by the adult industry?
"This just proves the Internets are a creation of the liberal elite! The Internets does not respect traditional Judeo-Christian values! It's time we declared war on the Internets!"
See this post, defending Obama's vote for telecom immunity: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hysteria.html Furthermore, he supports enforcement of copyright law (always has, although is concerned about its reach and absolutely against its retroactive extension).
The RIAA sues someone who can actually defend himself! Should be interesting...
Everyone should read his blog. It's amazing... covers lots of civil-liberties-related stuff like this. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Makes you think why someone hasn't made that album yet. Guantanamo Bay deserves a better artistic critique than Harlold and Kumar are able to provide.
Why buy if you can download? http://www.textbooktorrents.com/
Did the decision specify in what format they need to turn over the logs? Print 'em out and deliver them in a dump truck. That'll show viacon.
How about Death's '1,000 eyes'? Sweet song. http://www.lyricsbook.net/lyrics/6799.html
I hate Big Media. I hate MediaDefender.
However, I don't know of any hospitals or other critical infrastructure that is hosting a torrent tracker. It seems like a bit of FUD for Jim Louderback to say "But what if MediaDefender discovers a tracker inside a hospital, fire department or 911 center?". What MediaDefender did was bad enough (for once in my life, I'm rooting for the FBI here) -- it's not necessary to resort to these logical scare tactics.
"Legitimate" seems like a word that both sides in this case (and in most "intellectual property" disputes) want to claim as their own. The person saying it attempts to sidestep the entire debate of what makes a use "legitimate" (for whom, how, etc.) and hopes that the audience just assumes that he objectively knows what a legitimate use is (and agrees with his unspoken definition). Of course, those questions go to the heart of the real issue.
Great, now we're going to be hearing about how one special interest group or another has such-and-such problem with GTAIV for the next year. And it's all, unfortunately, going to qualify as news (for nerds).
Just alias all the doubleclick servers to 127.0.0.1 in your /etc/hosts to solve this problem
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=110440
TFSummary (and TFA) leaves out the most important part about this news: that the album is free as in freedom, not just free as in beer. It's released under a creative commons license, which means that he (or the **AA) can't go after you if you share the album online. AFAIK, this is the first high-profile album release under a CC license (I don't believe Radiohead's was under a CC license).