The Internet Backlash 140
An AC wrote to say that "telepolis has an article telling you why the DMCA and the companies who pushed it forward are doomed to fail. It's nothing new but a good summary of the neverending copyright discussion." The author's summary is good but I disagree with the conclusion -- there's no reason to believe that some deus ex machina is suddenly going to save net users from a police state.
Deus ex Machina.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Aww.. Dude.. I was totally counting on that tho'.. Are you sure?
Actually, if anything will save users from a police state it's going to have to be the users themselves.. The main problem I see right now is that most users are overwhelmed with the flood of new technology.. Many people are just amazed that it's possible to do so many things with a computer.. They're in the process of getting used to that ability now.
The flood of new tech right now is faster than law, and that lets people try new methods of communicating working and sharing.. Once these are ingrained it's going to be much harder for anyone to take these tools away from the masses.
Re:Deus ex Machina.. (Score:2)
But the problem with these 'users' is the fact that more Americans than ever are now masochistic stockholders of the very same corporations that would "control" them -- and most will never bite the hand that feeds them, no matter what it smells like.
Consider all the people who invested in the proprietary "goodness" of the "evil" RMBS, then did their part to fuel their devil by making sure to buy only an Intel/RIMM machine, in spite of bang/buck, and in spite of what's right. (maybe not the best example.)
Now, if ass-backwards IP laws mean that shareholders can profit from enforced artificial scarcity at the expense of cutting their own throats in the process...... the vast majority will.
There's only so much freedom available to trade in for a bit of [financial] security...
Re:Deus ex Machina.. (Score:1)
Who would bite a smelly hand??
Biting smelly hands (Score:1)
Uh.. (Score:1)
Yep, that's what Home Schooling is for. (Score:1)
Bob-
Hasn't anyone told you? (Score:1, Insightful)
First thing we do, let's learn to spell (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First thing we do, let's learn to spell (Score:1)
"They believed that information wants to be."
But that's just speculation. He DID however, spell "Adobe" as "Abode" in his first usage of it.
Chicken and egg (Score:1)
Re:First thing we do, let's learn to spell (Score:1)
Re:First thing we do, let's learn to spell (Score:1)
When you can write even 1 paragraph in German... (Score:2)
Re:First thing we do, let's learn to spell (Score:1)
Gegenreformation im Internet [heise.de]
Americans rock, you ignorant balkan bastard (Score:1)
what will save us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what will save us... (Score:1)
No Deus Ex Machina? (Score:1)
Solomon
thinking about it (Score:1)
Re:thinking about it (Score:1)
While (Bear->Chase(me)) { me->run(); }
haiku fu (Score:1)
fistful of wistful thinking
DMCA reigns
Doesn't this belong in SLASHBACK??? (Score:1)
"It's nothing new but a good summary of the neverending copyright discussion"
Exactly so. After reading this article I don't understand why this is considered "newsworthy". I can see this being a "slashback" article - but this is just a commentary on what's been going on with the DMCA.
Like a hole in the head (Score:2)
Wait a sec, the answer to the current copyright embroglio is more distribution models? How do you figure?
Perhaps MojoNation , which combines peer-to-peer technologies with micropayment
Oh, he means like adding micropayments to existing technologies. I like a guy so optomistic that the thousands of failed micropayment schemes that the Internet has seen doesn't discourage him. Though to call this a "new" mechanism is a bit inaccurate. It's more like late-80s.
Re:Like a hole in the head (Score:1)
You are confused about what mojonation is. It allows you to obtain credits (not money) by selling your bandwidth, storage, and cpu cycles.
Its not all that bad, but they need a better interface and nice shiny buttons. If they can reach a certain user base, they may actually go somewhere with it.
Re:Like a hole in the head (Score:2)
I don't know what it is either---and I'm not placing my bets on MojoNation---but past failures are a pretty terrible reason to doubt the future success of almost anything. Look behind anything that actually did succeed, and you'll doubtless find a battlefield full of corpses, a few dozen skeletons in closets, a handful of really interesting Before-Their-Times, and small city's head of also-rans.
If you really believe that there is no place for micropayment schemes, you should campaign to eliminate all coins as enabling payments too small to be financially significant. Something like it *will* succeed, though you probably won't admit it until long after it happens.
Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:4, Insightful)
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions? Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote. Yes, friends, they vote, they vote in large numbers, they care about these issues, and they make absolutely sure the politicians know it.
It seems odd that Net users, who are often the most well-connected people out there, haven't come together to defend themselves against political persecution and scapegoating. Still, that unity hasn't developed, but it had better happen soon. If we were to become a force that could change the outcome of elections, things would change, but until that happens, we'll continue to be on the losing end of laws like the DMCA. So, until people begin to get organized and flex some political muscle, nothing will change.
Anyone care to form an Internet-based political advocacy group? Slashdot would probably be an excellent place from which to draw some initial members. And a name even comes to mind: OpenSociety.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, there are already plenty of worthy organisations to join. The EFF [eff.org] springs to mind. Rather than do exactly what you've just said is a bad thing, form yet another group, why not support one that has been active for years and does some great stuff?
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but I wasn't thinking so much in terms of groups like the EFF. I'm thinking of something more overtly political, a group whose primary mission is to apply political pressure to make sure Net users' interests are respected. Certainly, its views would fit nicely with those of the EFF, but it would be more focused on either pressuring incumbent politicians or developing its own slate of candidates, not unlike the tactics of, dare I say it, the Christian Coallition. Obviously, what I'm contemplating would have absolutely nothing in common with them in terms of philosophy, but no one can deny that they exemplify the power of grass-roots organization with their voter guides. Love 'em or hate 'em, they often get results for their supporters. I think the Net could likewise benefit from a damn-the-torpedoes political action group. Let groups like the EFF, CDT, and EPIC continue to do what they do, and rely on them to formulate well-thought-out policy issues, then use whatever political action group you have to ram these issues through Congress and the state legislatures using good old-fashioned political muscle, since that's often the only language politicians understand.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
Then each of these little groups can talk to a few of its peers. Before long there is a big strange graph of these things all talking and linking up. Then they might have some political power.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
Usually, when I see a great idea on Slashdot, someone else says "It's already been done - go here".
So, come on - speak up - I would join one of these in a second.
http://www.LP.org/ (Score:1)
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly why. Afterall, corporations don't vote. Statistics, which I can't find right now but I'm sure someone else has a link to, indicate that most elections are decided by a very small portion of the populace which are not party loyal in any sence of the word and which are easily swayed by ads, debates, images, etc. So money is and will (for the forseeable future) the be one of if not THE determining factor in our nations elections.
Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote.
Well... yes and no. You need to differentiate the AARP (interest group) from RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies -- a Political Action Committie).
Point being, some issues are pertinant to large numbers of voters (social security) and thus can easily be backed by an interest group (uses voting power to sway congress). Other issues aren't important to lots of people, but they are important to either rich or powerfull (or both) people. These people don't constitute a useful voting block, but their money can sway that important small percent I was taking about earlier. Thus, they use their money to buy congressional influence.
Point being (yes, there is a point) Slashdot and the OpenSociety movement (as you call it) is uniquly poised to do BOTH. Sure, we're not as large a voting block as the AARP, but we are large. On the flip side, most people with the degree of technical literacy that visits and actualy grasps Slashdot regualary are in a position to demand a heafty salary. Both of these represent political capital which can be turned to our advantage. Of course, this requires that someone actualy stop typing and do something about all this, which I for one am not about to do, primarily because I have a pirated DVD to watch
[Note to any law enforcement types or corporate flunkies reading this, the above sentence is a joke. Please don't send the SWAT teams after me and impound my POS 486]
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
You are exactly right.
I think it's also important to remember that turnout for elections in this country is often low. It's nearly miraculous to get more than 50% of registered voters to show up at the polls. And that's registered voters. I often wonder what the percentage would be if we also counted people who were eligible to register to vote but who aren't even registered. What this all means is that elections are decided by a relatively small number of people. One could argue that this apathy works to the advantage of corporations because they have to sway smaller numbers of people and because an apathetic electorate, if it votes at all, is more likely to take the easy way out and vote for the incumbent or the candidate who had the most ads, often the same person, and almost always the one backed by powerful special interests. However, low voter turnout can also benefit grass-roots groups because they can have more of an effect on elections in such a situation, especially if they have an active and cohesive membership.
The trick is to build that membership and hold it together. The Internet provides a deceptive unity, I think. You're connected with all these people, but you often never see their faces and often don't even know their names. The problem comes in that you can have an impassioned discussion of an issue, then get up from your keyboard and forget about it. Lots of it has to do with the fact that many of the people around you often don't even know about the issues that you're so passionate about online. Education is part of the problem, but I think the old-school politicians--the ones who knocked on doors, held rallies, and kissed every baby within reach--had it right. Personal contact is a strong unifying force, if for no other reason than you see these people on a regular basis, and they see you, and you reinforce each other's viewpoints and determination to take action. What I'm getting to here is that any kind of Internet advocacy groups has to utilize a mixture of personal contact along with Internet-based communication. My guess is that this would be easiest to do initially in places like Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and New York. From there, it would hopefully spread as it gained momentum.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
Just to extend a bit on your point of view, which I totally agree with:
Corporations don't vote in the traditional sense of the word. However, through their huge contributions, their "votes" are actually considered more important by politicians. Which is why I say we no longer live in a democracy, i.e. a political system where each person is worth a vote. We live in a capitalicy, a political system where each dollar is worth a vote.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
Geeks like to believe they are better than the unwashed masses. They like to think that forming a large group will not accomplish any more than they can do on their own. So, I wish you luck in forming a geek political action group.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
felix stalder, the author of the telepolis articles is involved in an open source business called openflows [openflows.org].
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
Remember how clean room reengineering IBMs PC
BIOS created the (IBM) PC market.
That was about the same time Apple Lawyers had their final victory over Apple clone makers.
Guess which company did sell their stuff better afterwards?
And to the record companies:
They are really distribution companies specialized in music.
As long as You have to shift some hardware to the customer (CDs), You need to decide which to produce in large amounts & deliver to outlets _beforehand_.
PR will have be made so that demand is more likely to meet Your decision.
With the internet, the whole concept of disribution as record companies know it is redundant.
All they do for now is fighting with the back to wall to curb distribution of music via internet.
They will do it as long there is no way for them to rule distribution via internet the way they do now rule the traditional distribution channel.
cees
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:1)
Right. Because they have the time to sit back and write their representatives. And they have the money to send to AARP to shlep all over the whorehouse commonly known as Capitol Hill.
And they have this time and money, and I don't, because I have to f**king work while they get to sit on their ass and collectively spend 14% of my income!
Geek PAC (Score:1)
Re:Geek PAC (Score:2)
That very well may be true. I certainly hope not because if it is true, we might as well clear a space on the wall for the telescreen.
Try Libertarian (Score:1)
The present American incarnation is "Libertarian." There are such incarnations in most every country on earth, where people defend the rights of others.
Before you freak out and knee-jerk with "anti-government extremists" or "drug using hippy-freaks", "gun-toting militia members" or even "home schooling fundamentalists", be aware that EVERYONE believes there is something that is sacred.
When someone finally realizes that everyone has something that is sacred, they are one step away from freedom. That one step is recognition of others rights to choose what it is that is sacred for them. Some people think they recognize freedom of religion, but still choose to limit how others may pray.
Some people believe in "free speach" while choosing to limit what others may say, or read, or write.
The idea of "private property" is restricted in what I may do with my property, where or when or to whom I may sell it, or destroy it. Or even what I am allowed to own.
Defending your own ability to choose means also defending other peoples ability to choose, even if you disagree with that choice. This recognition of the equal rights of others is the root of "libertarian", and directly opposes the abuses of force that are being objected to here at Slashdot.
Yet look at the backlash that the word LIBERTARIAN causes. A backlash from people who still believe that only what they themselves believes is sacred actually is.
The fact that blatently abusive groups continue to win popular elections is a perfect demonstration that the "majority" is still very much in favor of that abuse. It may be time to revisit the idea of "majority rule".
Bob-
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
Yep, they did. Adobe didn't back off because they felt bad about what they did. One could certainly argue that they could back off and let the feds take the heat and accomplish the same thing, but the fact remains that they took plenty of heat themselves, and I imagine they didn't like it.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it (Score:2)
No, that's exactly the problem. All the moaning in the world will get you a grand total of squat unless it's backed by political action. Yes, you need communications infrastructure in place so people can share ideas, and mailing lists and Web-based forums work quite nicely for that, up to a point, but they don't substitute for face-to-face contact. And no amount of discussion will substitute for action. In the end, you have to be ready, willing, and able to deliver the goods (votes) or bust some heads (end political careers, or at least seriously damage them), or both, whichever is necessary. When you're able to do these things, you get attention and respect, and things suddenly start to go your way.
The real reason DMCA will fail (Score:2, Insightful)
The ingenuity of the geeks.
Information may not really want to be free (as in speech), but if people with the right skills want it to be free (as in beer), it will be.
Copyright law -- and by extension the DMCA -- is merely state sanctioned censorship: they allow the holder of the copyright to censor anyone who wants to copy it.
And, as was said back in the pre-web days, the internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
Summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Forgot some... (Score:1)
Re:police state? (Score:1)
No one is saying that copyright is bad. The unamimous reaction here at slash do is that the DMCA in its attempt to further copyright protection has also seemed to step on people's free speech rights.
That's the question, bozo. And when you think about it, and you post here freely using those rights, maybe you should be holding these rights a little more dearly than you were earlier.
I won't honor your silly comments about the technically sophisticated, of which you are clearly not one. Glad to see that you learned how to use a computer.
How's this work? (Score:2)
OK, so, hypothetically, I download some content I don't have a license to read. Other than a silly piece of paper in Washington, what's to stop me from reverse engineering the software and creating a non-authenticating version? Or hacking the authentication out of the existing software? Or plugging in my audio out into line in and re-recording it into another format? Or pointing authentication.riaa.com at 127.0.0.1 and running my own daemon? I'm honestly interested to hear how/if these things can be stopped.
Last I check a computer followed instructions of its user, regardless of legality, moral issues, etc. The way I see it, until that absolute control is pried from my hands, I can get content for free.
Re:How's this work? (Score:1)
Until the governments of all nations of the world collude (ha!) to pull the plug on every single ISP, this is the way it will stay. These DMCA (or Congress, or whoever) dudes don't somehow get that if the code exists, be it encrypted, copyrighted or whatever, it is possible to access it without authorisation.
Unless, of course, there is no decrypting key at all. Which would be the final triumph of technology over common sense, I feel.
Re:How's this work? (Score:1)
All they'd have to do is get someone to argue that nobody really needs that much processing power except for registered business users, spread their side of the story over the major media outlets (Which, apart from Zif [wired.com] f-Da [pcmag.com] vis [techtv.com], the BBC, and possibly the non-MS bits of NBC, are almost all owned by **AA/BSA/etc. members.), take a cue from Pepsi/Coke and buy some propaganda space in schools, and viola, no more 16-year-old hackers.
Re:How's this work? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are up to completely reverse-engineering authentication.riaa.com's protocols, then you're right, you won't have a problem. For the rest of us, who don't want to have to figure out DeCSS, SDMI, or whatever the control method of the year is on our own, that "little piece of paper" is what's preventing us from getting the appropriate access software from the people that have the brains to figure out how to write it. Not to mention the average user who just wants to read their ebook on another PC without having to wonder about finding the (possibly illegal) decryption software, installing it, etc.
Hypothetically, you're right, and there is no way to totally lock things down. In the real world of limited time, money, and encryption know-how, just a few bad laws are all it takes to separate most people from their fair use rights and even to deny them the knowledge that such rights exist.
Re:How's this work? (Score:2, Informative)
As for preventing people from knowing that they have these rights... well, again the Internet will tell them. And if they don't feel the urge to go look, then obviously they're not using these rights, and so it doesn't matter whether they know about them or not. A shame, but then they probably used AOL anyway. The savages.
curious... (Score:1)
People will pay. (Score:1)
Those that have used and enjoyed the 802.11 services will find another provider and likely pay for it this time.
The doom-and-gloom fails to recognize that the vast majority of internet use is pay already, those ISP's pay their interconnect providers, the interconnect providers use that money to pay their long-haul providers, and so forth.
As long as there is demand for some offered service, someone will provide that service.
Nothing is free, as in beer. Someone pays for it. At this moment it may not be you. Some other time, it will be.
Bob-
Re:People will pay. (Score:2)
Someone is paying. (Score:1)
There is no "except". You are paying. Part of the calculation for the cost of your "unlimited" service is the fact that there is no personal "100%" use. You sleep some time. Or, as you put it, "while I'm not at home".
Your service provider, if they are capable of charging a price you're likely to pay, did not provision their backbone, or contract with their circuit/service/peering/long-haul providers, with 100% (or even 25%) utilization in mind.
As people such as yourself, by "allowing passers-by to use my 802.11b", increase the agrigate use of resources, either the greater use of resources will have to be paid for by raising the fees you pay, or your provider will go out of business.
Yes, in fact I have performed network engineering for just such providers, in just such enterprises, with just such issues at stake. One such enterprise may have been your present service provider.
That is one reason that business (multi-person) IP services generally cost more than personal (single person, family) IP services. They utilize greater resources.
So you are wrong to say it "doesn't cost me". It certainly DOES cost you. Because in the final reconing, There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
It likely also violates your service agreement, so don't bother crying about it if they shut you off for "sharing".
Bob-
DMCA a lesser evil? (Score:1)
I don't know about you guys, but If I had to pick, I'd take the former. Don't get me wrong, I hate the DMCA just as much as the next guy, but the alternatives are frightening.
Re:DMCA a lesser evil? (Score:1)
The thing I don't understand about all this hoopla about encrypting data is how the man (or whoever we were fighting against) expects it to stay encrypted. I mean, it's gotta be unencrypted some time. Software encryption is lame, as DeCSS and the victimized Dimitri Skylov shows, but now there's the possibility of hardware enforcement of the DMCA. To me, this is just more garbage. There is some point that the data becomes transformed into those musical compression waves we all call noise. So what if I can only decode *.lame by sending it to my sound card? I just plug in a recorder, and I have my music back in good old .wav.
What's that? Remove the ability to record? It's been hampered in mp3 encoders, I can tell you that. But to remove it totally or destroy it to acquiese to the perversion of copyright known as the DMCA would totally alienate the user base.
Re:DMCA a lesser evil? (Score:1)
The trouble is, "effective copy protection" as you call it, is largely a myth. The world's best cryptographers have said that the threat model that digital copy protection is trying to address is impossible one. A good article that explains why this is so is here [counterpane.com]. In that article, Bruce Schneier even goes so far as to say that copying is a natural law of the digital world.
New Business Models? (Score:1)
I envision a future where you Can't Sell things like books, music, or movies. Books can be on the web with advertisements, music bands can tour or get played on net radio, and movies can have commercials. The "problem" with advertising on the net is that advertisers finally found out how much we ignore ads in general, especially dinky little ones at the top of web pages. Ad revenues will come back eventually.
For this to generate money, you have to cut out the middlemen - Sony, Universal, Time Warner, Random House, etc.. Too bad for them.
Re:New Business Models? (Score:1)
On the upside, it cuts out the middleman and means that author of the work (whatever it may be) gets to decide how much profit he wants (or can expect). E.g. - Pop Band Alpha release a new album. Rather, they agree to release it once X number of copies have been pre-ordered an paid for. (Insert promotional tactics such as pre-ordered copies get signed or something). It can be assumed thanks to Napster, iMesh and the like that once the album is released, all people who want it will (or will be able to) have it. (Few will buy after its release)
Cons? Well, it means all authors have to have marketing know-how (as well as a reputation and enough followers willing to pay up front). It means first sales might be tough or non-existant (i.e. freebie demos), and if X copies are not pre-ordered then none can be sold. (Well, they could, but this weakness would reinforce the non-buyers into thinking that they didn't actually need to buy it at all).
Hopefully, it would become frowned upon to follow an author of a medium without ever actually buying CD or whatever, and the market would flourish.
Re:New Business Models? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Go to http://www.baen.com [baen.com].
They're selling digital books over the Internet, at approximately $2.50 each, way less than the paperback version.
I've had a RocketReader since they first came out. However, I never purchased any books for the device. I didn't want to deal with the hassle of re-licensing books if my reader ever bit the dust (which is likely considering how many times I've dropped it already). Too much like Divx (the failed DVD format) for my tastes.
In contrast, Baen sells books unencrypted, in formats like RTF and HTML. I feel safe buying these books, because I know I'll always have software available to read the format. This is a very good thing.
There's a very good essays on their site explaining their philosophy, and why they think it works. Jim Baen clearly sees which way things are going because of advances in technology. He gets it. Which shouldn't be too suprising since he's a SF publisher...
Re:New Business Models? (Score:1)
That looks like a really neat website, the only problem is that it markets books that I would say are unpopular. I saw no "mainstream" or famous authors (at least to me). To be truly successful, at least to earn my business, they would have to carry more classics by authors like Joseph Conrad. I will say this though, it is a good start.
Ontopic:
I believe that whoever has the money will win. Right now the companies have the money and they are pushing the DMCA. So the way it is going, unless the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional I think we will have to live with it. I also believe that the higher courts will try to stay away from this. They don't like to get into things they don't really understand. Plus if it does go to them, whose argument are they going to follow? The EFF's? I doubt it, more likely the million dollar legal team from the record companies, etc.
Re:New Business Models? (Score:2)
As I said once before, the problem is that big content companies (and the legislators they 0wn) all think they have an entitlement to make it big on the internet, and since they can't think of a business plan that will actually work, they are trying to legislate that entitlement into reality, civil right be damned in the process.
Article misses the big picture (Score:1)
It's rarely the established players who create the next big thing. It's the little guys working the niches. The niche catches on, the little guy gets big, the new big guy misses the next little guy, life goes on.
As Microsoft is learning: you can try and try to control everything, but there is one of you and lot of people trying to find ways around you.
BTW, this doesn't say that the short term won't suck though.
Re:Article misses the big picture (Score:1)
<prissy>
The more you tighten your grip, the more computer systems will slip through your fingers!
</prissy>
Which came first, economic decline or DMCA stuff? (Score:1)
Though I found the article interesting, the fact that it's all about protecting intellectual property in a manner that allows the creator more control to determine their income, I do wonder how much financial pressure is being caused by world economy decline.
Or is this DMCA and such contributing to the decline in consumer interest in this technology (I know it's rather distasteful to me)?
World Economy - "China is a lone global bright spot,..." [cbsnews.com]
Hmmmm, and what is China's reason for this? China wasn't a part of the trillion dollar bet. [pbs.org]
But where does China stand on DMCA and such like matters? And is China a hint as to what to expect?
In other words: Will China being a bright spot in the world economy (due to not playing the trillion bollar gamble) lead the experts (with blinders on of course) to promote whatever China does, regarding DMCA like issues?
Police State? (Score:2)
The truth is, there's a good reason for believing both points of view. We're talking future events here. The reason for believing the police state will happen is simple; that's where we've headed over the past few years. But the good reason for believing we won't is also obvious -- this has happened before in the past, and it was defeated then, too.
Re:Police State? (Score:1)
It was defeated by people who were willing to risk their "lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honour". Many of whom did in fact lose everything. I don't see many of today's US citizens risking anything for their freedom. They didn't do anything when the Bill of Rights was trashed to further the war on drugs.
Army of Darkness (Score:2)
For some reason, this made me think of Army of Darkness [imdb.com]. Hordes of evil undead creatures besieging a castle, with Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen commanding the legions of the damned.
How Hollywood blew their chance. (Score:1)
He came back to tell us that they were deep in conversation about how passing the right laws in the U.S. and around the world was the only answer. He suddenly broke in with the question "Instead of trying to figure out how to restrict access, why don't you focus on how to make money off this new technology?".
The response was dead silence for several seconds. And then they went right on back to how they needed to get Congress to pass the right laws.
And so, the DMCA was born the next year - resulting in the situation we are now in. And they still haven't figured out how to make money off the Internet. Go figure.
Re:How Hollywood blew their chance. (Score:2)
That seems to be a facet of a more general problem for internet business wannabes. People (MBAs?) seem to see it as a gold rush instead of a business opportunity. Companies seem more interested in getting that precious domain name and spying on their visitors than they are in obvious things like, say, selling something now and then.
And of course, the reason the internet has turned into a huge IP war zone is because there's no tangible property to be 0wned (beyond the fiber optics and the Cisco routers).
And if there's one thing that MBAs and governments can't stand, it's something that isn't 0wned.
copy-protected CDs, somewhat offtopic. (Score:2)
Re:copy-protected CDs, somewhat offtopic. (Score:1)
Re:copy-protected CDs, somewhat offtopic. (Score:1)
You called? (Score:1)
You're damn right... I have enough to deal with between school and trolling Slashdot, not to mention crew 6 days a week, to save you all from yourselves. Why don't you all take a little initiative?
*sigh* (Score:1)
I think that we should listen to the article, and quit protesting at everything. We'll quit fighting back, and 'give in', as it were. Eventually, something will cause everything to change for us.
The article told us that it'd be all right.. the article.. are you going to mess with the article?
i know i'm not.
New models (Score:1)
Allow me to propose a new model, or perhaps an old model if you will: labor markets. Imagine eliminating the idea of intellectual property altogether. Instead of copyrights and licenses, you have buyers and sellers of labor. It's a solely free market solution and it ensures that all information is free at the same time. Let me demonstrate:
A company needs software. A particular open source package fulfills their needs except for a handful of needed features. The company then hires (or more likely, contracts) a programmer or team of programmers or software company to add the features they need. They do this, however, with full knowledge that those features will be released to the public under the GPL and will likely become part of the official code base of the package so that others may use them. (psst.. remember what your CS profs told you about the virtues of modular design? :-)
The owners of a large amphitheater would like to sell some tickets so they search for some popular bands. A particular band has become a hit nearly overnight because they have a really cutting edge sound and have marketed themselves successfully on local radio, on the Internet, and by giving out their music for free at every opportunity. The amphitheater owners compete for bands by what percentage of the ticket price will be given to the band and by providing a nice stage with quality equipment. The bands compete for gigs by offering to perform music that people want to hear live for a reasonable price.
Note a common theme in all this? Competition! True free markets of any type always work because they are natural. They don't require regulation. They don't require false incentives. There's no man in the middle to gum up the works.
I'd say it's high time we brought out the WD-40.
Recipe for a Backlash - Ch.1: Free Music (Score:1)
What we need is something to establish the credibility of independently produced cultural goods as a personal business. MP3.com was a significant attempt in the music world, but I believe it didn't take hold because musicians expected the world to come to them. In addition, MP3.com evolved into a label of its own, limiting the artists' flexibility of advertisement and promotion.
I mention music because it is the art I am closest with, as an amateur keyboardist and backyard acoustics engineer. (offshoot of EE major) As such, I would like to propose a business 'recipe' which budding musicians may use to make a name for themselves. I am currently considering this plan to help a local band I sometimes jam with. Comments are welcome..
1.) Develop your own style. Take what established musicians have done and change it a little. Practice. Then change it radically. Experiment and do not try to emulate other sounds you're familiar with. People generally aren't interested in listening to another clone of B.B.King or Zeppelin or Hendrix or Korn or whoever you like.
2.) Practice until it hurts. Don't stop until your music sounds precisely how you want. Get others opinions and listen to them. Be critical with yourself and take as much criticism as you can handle.
3.) Find a moderately sized room or basement and stuff the ceiling and walls full of soft materials to dampen unwanted reflections. Old mattresses, blankets, egg-crate sheets, and carpet work fine. Dumpsters are your friends. If you want to go all out, search online for plans for homemade acoustic absorbing pillars and tune them to your room to kill natural resonances.
4.) Buy two high-quality microphones or make them yourselves. Search google for "diy microphone." You'll need to position the mics equally in front of the rig and experiment for the best stereo effect. Many of the best classical and jazz recordings are made this way because it sounds more natural than miking every instrument and trying to mix them later. If any instrument is too loud, correct its position relative to the mics or do something to dampen its sound like stuffing drums with old t-shirts. Don't turn up the bass amp too much. You can always boost the lower octaves in post processing if needed. Eliminate any rattle the same way. You don't want to hear your drumset rack shimmer when the bass kicks or any windows or ducts vibrate when the lead guitar has a solo.
5.) Do any (minor) cleanup with your favorite sound editor, then encode your performances to OggVorbis since MP3 is encumbered by patents and royalties.
6.) Create an attractive but bandwidth-friendly webpage and find cheap hosting. Register a domain of your band's name. (Speaking of names, try not to choose a boring, trendy name like "BluezGroovz 22." Think marketing. What will people remember?)
7.) Post your songs in OggVorbis on your website and allow FTP access to the original WAV's (but don't advertise this) so people can burn CD's or make and distribute your music in MP3 on Napster, Gnutella, etc. Use an open license in which YOU maintain copyright, but your work may be freely distributed except for commercial gain.
8.) Burn CD's. Lots of them. They're cheap. Give them out wherever it makes sense. Print your web address boldly on the cover along with a message that says "Please Copy and Share This Disk!" This is your advertisement. It's an investment and you can probably write it off your taxes (IANAL). If people like what they hear, they will come back for more. Make friends with local DJ's and have them play your stuff at parties, dances, etc. if the music suits this environment. Visit all applicable local radio stations and see if they'll bite. Tell them your music is royalty free and they can play it to their hearts content as long as they mention your name. Small stations will be easiest. Larger stations will follow the hype. Get people to call and request your music.
9.) Now your name is out and (hopefully) people have some of your songs 'stuck in their head.' Schedule to play wherever you can but don't limit yourself to bars and clubs where your audience is limited (and likely too inebriated to remember you). Do some charity concerts to enhance your local image. Eventually, people will actually pay $5-15 or so to hear you play live. Take $0.25 of that and use it to give everyone a free CD as they leave.
10.) Depending on the size of your town, record labels may have heard of you by now and offer you contracts. Don't bite or you'll likely end up the next 'one hit Wonders.' You can make more money on your own. Believe in your work as an entrepreneurial business.
11.) As your popularity grows, slowly expand your live touring region. Slowly accumulate your own stage equipment. Don't buy new ever! Avoid local music stores which often charge at least MSRP. Don't rent equipment if you can help it. Starting small is always better, but as you grow, experiment with creative lighting and effects to enhance your professional image.
12.) Enjoy your success. If everything goes as planned and your music doesn't suck, your personal business should be able to pay your bills and those of all other band members with enough left over to buy equipment and save for the future. (You are living comfortably but frugally aren't you?) Keep writing new music and release it often. Change styles when you run dry or at least be versatile. Before long, you'll be known nationwide for a couple hit songs and be able to pull in $30 or more per ticket for your shows. Without a record label leeching off your success, you'll be all set financially and free to do whatever you want.
Good luck!
News story of the year: (Score:1)
In an unprecedented turn of events, a large group of record labels and publishers decided to sue the computer industry for producing technology which enables digital information to be duplicated, some of which they claim, may be unauthorized copyrighted works. "We believe that digital technology is unfairly disrupting our market," commented the owner of a large publishing house who wished to remain anonymous, "once you digitize information, it is volatile and can be recreated, transferred, stored or destroyed at little or no cost." The group aims to sue the industry for over $658 trillion dollars in compensation for all the free, unprinted information consumers have gained access to over the last 30 years using digital technologies such as diskettes, CD-ROM and the Internet. "Computer technology is a monster," proclaimed the director of a well known publisher's association, "we are aiming to educate the public through this lawsuit what a scourge digital information is on our free market economy." "In fact, using computers is like downloading communism into your home," he later quoted at a press conference, "what we really want is full control of the technology so that royalties can be fairly extracted." Among others who are expected to join the lawsuit are a group of smelly hippies who came out of the woodwork carrying cardboard signs to join the protest against computer technology. "Dude.. technology is like fighting mother nature," said one of their leaders, "all we want is peace and harmony with the earth." The group said it wishes to sue for psychological distress caused by playing digitized music while using illicit drugs. "Digital is so unnatural, man," one protester told reporters, "my trips get like totally funky unless I have the smooth, warm tones of vacuum tubes and records to set my vibe." Analysts say that if this suit fails, the respective groups may turn to patents to stave off further use of digital technologies. "We're working to dig up an old patent covering 'the use of binary mathematics in conjunction with an electrical device,'" quoted a prominent intellectual property lawyer, "it's sorta what they call a 'submarine patent,' but we believe it is perfectly valid and somehow just got misfiled."
(yes, this post is entirely fake and satirical.
Hippies.. (Score:1)
Does this work both ways? (Score:1)
Alternatively will the DMCA allow me to sue the manufacturers of devices (stereo systems, public address systems, maybe even Marconi for inventing radio) which are the technical means that allow this abuse of my ears?
Why the DMCA is Just The First Step (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, imagine what happens when a new technology comes along that allows these groups to communicate with each other, not so much directly via voice, but communicate stuff like "I've got something I'm willing to part with, which someone else might want" and "I could sure use something I'm thinking about, does anyone know where I can find something like that".
Except, the big thing about this "new technology" is that this form of communication is primarily about abstracting these communications in a way that makes obstacles formerly difficult to surmount -- such as knowing lots of details about a local group before communicating with it -- nearly completely disappear.
And, this technology, while it supports "Peer-to-peer" communication, is most effective because it supports arbitrary many-to-many communications at this level.
That is, a person in group A doesn't have to know much of anything about a person in group B to communicate these kinds of statements, queries, requests, offers, etc., nor do those two people have to rendezvous to communicate, using this new technology, in a fashion that automatically excludes either of them from communicating with other people in other groups.
But, there's a problem. There are entities -- let's call them "interests" -- that depend, they believe anyway, on the difficulty of communication between groups in this manner. They believe they have to keep these groups effectively separate, so they can be the "intermediaries" through which these groups do most, ideally all, of their communication.
And these interests become very alarmed at the prospect of the groups of humans communicating so easily and openly, that they try to shut down the new technology.
But, guess what! The new technology almost automatically "routes around" any blatant roadblocks set up to restrict it, because if communication is shut down directly between group X and group Y, it'll naturally, with only a little extra effort, flow indirectly via other groups.
Even in cases where specific groups, or collections of groups, are "successfully" shut off from the outside world, this new technology allows people within the isolated groups to communicate effectively, even in "hiding" if necessary, enough so they yearn, more and more every day, for the opportunity to communicate freely with all those other groups out there, with whom they now communicate only sporadically and at great risk.
So, these "interests" inevitably try yet another tack.
For one thing, they try to convince enough people in each group that, somehow, people in their group who communicate the most, and gain the most from the communication, benefit unfairly from the new technology.
They also start setting up beauracracies to try to centralize, or channel, these communications, and encourage more and more people to consider any communications outside of these channels to be, somehow, immoral or unethical.
Oh, sure, at first these beauracracies are designed to "smooth the flow" of communications, to "enable" them for "newbies" who don't know the system all that well, so as to protect them from themselves, so to speak.
But, inevitably, these beauracracies do almost nothing but grow, and not by simply participating, like everyone else, as equals, in this communications system -- no, they have to use force to interfere with, and maybe "skim off of", communications that would ordinarily happen just fine without them. Only by reducing the natural flow of communications can they really grow the way their proponents dream they should.
And the irony is that they've convinced so many people of the necessity of this, that even people who haven't yet even begun to really use and understand this wonderful new technology are educated, or indoctrinated, to believe that it is, in fact, evil, or at least enables a great deal of evil, and that, in the long run, it should be shut down, by force if not voluntarily by its users, to return to a "simpler time", before the technology became available, or at least to a time when it wasn't so widely and effectively used by individual people as they saw fit.
After all, the beauracracy, by controlling communication, is able to emit a constant stream of "examples" of "horrible things" that happen when communication happens freely. They get better and better at focusing people's attention on those comparatively rare examples, successfully hiding the fact that the vast majority of uses of this new technology are benign, if not obviously beneficial to society as a whole, as well as the individuals engaging in them.
Yet, as anyone who pays attention knows, wherever the anti-technology interests succeed in "roping off" several groups for awhile, those "horrible things" happen so much more often. They don't publicize that, of course, and a whole cottage industry arises to defend, and mislead regarding, those roped-off areas, even after the ropes have been overrun by the people within them. These areas are, therefore, regarded by many as "safe" areas, potential utopias where the constant access to worldwide communication is reduced to a pleasant, nearly noiseless, trickle by the beneficent dictators who decide exactly who communicates with whom, when, and how.
Sure, these interests, in trying to achieve these results, occasionally overreach, provoking harsh reactions from a (usually small) segment of the overall population.
But, with rare exception, there are never enough people in any given group that truly see the threat these artificial impediments to this form of communication, imposed on behalf of the "interests", represents to the body of humanity as a whole.
The divide-and-conquer strategy thus appears to work, and work well. Over time, as more and more people begin to define their well-being based on how much they communicate with the beauracracy, rather than freely with other groups, people who might otherwise fight against the whole idea of such a beauracracy resort instead to fighting in favor of just this or that specific form of beauracratic interference with how this new technology would naturally work, so as to ensure that the beauracracy becomes more firmly entrenched between groups that would otherwise communicate freely, so people already depending (at least somewhat) on the beauracracy for their communications will have more to enjoy, safe in the knowledge that their friendly beauracracy provides them a "safe", "reliable" connection to the outside world.
For example, notions of "fairness" arise that, while simply and directly handled in an unfettered system, seem to require yet more beauracracy to balance things out. Instead of someone who spots such an unfairness simply offering their ability to communicate on behalf of the disadvantaged, they're encouraged to call on the beauracracy to explicitly disadvantage those who are seen as, comparatively, advantaged. The result is that the widespread urge to do good for one's neighbor in need is replaced by a widespread urge to call on the use of force to make someone else "do good" for that neighbor.
The only thing that could dismantle such a beauracracy is if a substantial number of citizens made it their goal to dispel not just with the beauracracy, but with the whole notion that it's ever necessary to intervene between two or more people communicating using this new technology.
But that's not likely to happen, because the "interests" ultimately end up controlling the media and educational establishments, making even openly discussing reducing the interference something that must be done in whispers.
Now, if you think I'm talking about the Internet/WWW as the "new technology", and the "interests" as corporate and governmental bodies using tactics like the DMCA, the CDA, and other things (like the French government banning certain materials on Yahoo), you're only partly right.
Because, in reality, I'm mostly describing a system of communication between humans that's nearly language-independent (it works well even between people who do not share the same spoken or written language), "agnostic" (it doesn't care about the race, religion, gender, or other attributes of the people involved in the communication), nearly instantaneous (information about each communication almost naturally communicates itself to everyone else using the same system, almost like being in a chat room), and, most interestingly of all, that's probably over 10,000 years old.
That system of communication?
It's called the "price system".
That's right, I'm talking about the free market, the "place" where two or more people can go, communicate effectively regarding their needs and wants to conduct a transaction, often without the need to know much of anything about each other, and communicate almost perfectly compressed information on the transaction to everyone else in the same market.
And who are the interests that oppose or seek to fetter this communication?
They're the people who brought you Collectivism, Communism, Socialism, Taxes, Levies, Fees, all the largely involuntary means by which communications via this system are either impinged upon or forced to occur.
And, just as decreasing the ability of people to freely exchange "data" on the Internet is easily seen by "geeks" as having an overall detrimental effect on the ability of society to function in an ideal way, these fetters on the free market have nearly the exact same effect on humanity, multiplied by several orders of magnitude or so.
For example, laws restricting naturally-free trade across international borders prevent important information from flowing between them -- information on inefficiencies on one side or the other -- just as laws restricting discussing security or performance flaws in software prevent information on those flaws from freely flowing.
In both cases, the Powers That Be, or that want to be anyway, claim there's insufficient need for such freely-flowing information, compared to the "damage" it'd do to one side or the other.
But, those of us who already understand the importance of a truly free market, and have confidence that it's the humanity of individual humans, not the individual wills of a comparatively small elite with a great deal of gunpower, that'll, in the long run, best guide humanity to the highest uses of these technologies, consider what's happening to the Internet today, including the DMCA, the encroachment of national borders on this supposedly "borderless" territory, as merely a modest replaying of the gradual neutering of a bit player (compared to the free market, anyway).
Sadly, even though the Internet is not necessary for the price system, or free market, to flourish, it is impossible for the Internet to truly flourish without the price system or free market. No government that infringes on the free market will ever permit a free Internet to flourish, because, in many important ways, they're the same thing, or just different manifestations of the same fundamental urge all humans have to communicate with each other in all sorts of ways regarding their needs, wants, hopes, desires, abilities, energy, and so on.
And, as long as our children are indoctrinated in the schools, via the media, and by our own laws to view the market as some sort of enemy to be constantly tamed by the use, or at least the threat, of force (aka government intervention), they'll inevitably, directly or indirectly, view the Internet in just the same way, especially once they "get over" the "newness" of it.
Those of us who've been "online" long enough already recognized the symptoms years ago, such as, people claiming the Internet isn't "fair" because not everyone has identical access, bandwidth, etc.
So, I don't see how DMCA can end up being anything but a short stop -- perhaps a temporarily-overreaching one -- on a long march towards the same degree of restrictions on free communication of "digital" data that we already have -- AND WITH A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT FROM THESE SUPPOSEDLY "BRILLIANT" INTERNET "GEEKS" -- imposed on the free market.
Oh, the new restrictions will have to be better-packaged than the DMCA and CDA, to be sure. And the Supreme Court and legislatures will have to be "taught", just as FDR taught them, to view the U.S. Constitution as requiring governmental intervention in Internet communication (a la the free market) instead of preventing it. (But this issue transcends the Constitution of one nation anyway, of course.)
So, you can complain about the DMCA all you want now, but just you wait.
In another 20-40 years, tax rates for most anybody working for a living in the "free market" will start at around 70%, the Internet as we know it will have been replaced by a network that allows "free" access for its citizens to communicate efficiently only with corporate and governmental sites (the former paying high taxes, perhaps in the form of bandwidth and content) and very limited, low-bandwidth access to truly free intercommunication between arbitrary people...
In summary: if you want to fight infringements on your freedoms, it's about time you figured out that it's your freedom to communicate, including discussing and exchanging price information (of which an actual monetary exchange for goods and services is a crucial component), that's the basis for most practical aspects of all the other freedoms you do seem to care about right now.
But as long as you take up the banner against the free exchange of price information, as so many of you "geeks" do, your efforts to repeal things like the DMCA will be nothing more than temporary successes for the benefit of a limited audience that'll, sooner or later, look to even more governmental limitations on freedoms formerly enjoyed widely by users of the Internet.
BRAVO! Re:Why the DMCA is Just The First Step (Score:1)
Re:BRAVO! Re:Why the DMCA is Just The First Step (Score:1)
A bit? A *BIT*!!??
Sheesh, guess I'll have to type longer next time!
(Yeah, I do tend to be verbose. I'm a charter member of On And On Anon...say *that* three times fast! ;-)
You want to fight back? Ask a Luddite... (Score:1)
I've adopted it into my life. Independent people make MaxiMegaloCorp nervous, and those bastards have been comfortable too long.
They sell you Wonder Bread. Try beaking the real kind. The smell of a loaf of seven-grain about to come out of the oven is better than sex or cocaine.
Change your oil yourself. In many states, the chain shops are required to accept the used oil for recycling without charge. Besides, do you want to spend $30 and twenty minutes waiting, or do you want to spend about $8, about twenty minutes of work, and be damn sure it was done right?
Brew your own beer. Most beer sucks, including almost all of the beer legal for supermarket sales in my state. Not to mention, Coors' is brewed about fifty miles from me, and is one of the more offensive corporations on the planet.
If you smoke, grow your own tobacco. RJR the likes may have gotten a raw deal in the courts, but they're scum just the same. How badly do they need your money?
If your grocery store is a chain of more than a couple-three stores, you probably end up giving a lot of money to some real scum like Archer-Daniels-Midland, "Supermarket to the World." Find a decent coop. Better yet, put in a garden. IMHO, a baked chicken tastes better when you raised it yourself, and you didn't need to give any money to Tyson to get it.
Cut your own damn firewood and clean your own chimney. The way your utility company probably tries to fuck you, burning a cord or two of pine this winter will keep you especially warm.
I think you can see where this is going: Declare independence. Look at your life, and look at all of the places where you're paying someone else or depending on someone else to do something that you could easily do for yourself. People comfortable in such dependent conditions are easily blackmailed and tend to bend over and take it. People used to doing for themselves tend to be more resistant to being screwed. A gardening handloading blacksmithing gourmet fly-tying brewer makes the Powers-That-Be nervous, because he's in a position to tell them where to go if he doesn't like their latest stunt.
And I'm going to cut this off, because I've got Martina McBride's "Independence Day" stuck in my head now, and it's a really annoying song.
Re:You want to fight back? Ask a Luddite... (Score:1)
So that's why I keep seeing so many bake sales on the street corners these days
A very naive article (Score:1)
It depends what "police state" means. By the standards of 25 years ago, the War on Drugs has already destroyed most of the Bill of Rights. One of the terrible things the Gestapo used to do in Nazi Germany was to come knocking at your door at 2 a.m. (instead of when you're awake). Today's police forces in the US and Britain make this look like quaint old-world courtesy: if they've had a drugs tip-off, they don't knock at all, they smash your door down without warning and enter (with drawn firearms, in the US).
The US and other western governments will continue to reduce the liberties of their citizens, either for their own ends or when manipulated by wealthy corporations, until a sufficient number of those citizens are willing to risk their lives, and all they own, to stop them. (And if that sounds overblown or extreme to you, you need to read some history.) I don't see that happening until long after it's too late.
One of the best articles I've seen... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the part that makes me fear for the future. The laws in our country generally reflect the "will of the people". Stop. Think about this. Sure, there are the odd examples where something gets slipped in almost as an afterthought and people don't realize it until it's too late (e.g. the CDA, remember that?, also to a lesser extent the DMCA). In general, though, the laws don't get passed unless a decent number of people think they should be.
Notice that I didn't mention the Constitution anywhere in the preceding paragraph. This is one of the things I realized: Most people in the US DON'T CARE about the Constitution. You may argue with me and say that I'm making sweeping judgments without any fact (but then, hey, this is Slashdot). You may say that the Constitution and human rights are important to everyone in the country. To which I reply: Native Americans. Slavery. Imperialism. Manifest Destiny. McCarthyism.
People here care about the Constitution for just as far is is suits THEM. Not anyone else. Not some pinko kike nigger who wants to be able to raise a family and maybe live in peace. Face it; most people in this country (including many judges, prosecutors, policemen) don't really care about the "intent" behind the Constitution. In fact, if you were able to convince them of what the intent actually was, they'd probably try to get the damned thing changed, and fast.
Then another thought occured to me. This is what the Supreme Court is for. It may take them forever to reach a real conclusion on any case that really affects society, and they may take a middle-ground stance on many issues we think are hugely important. By and large, though, they succeed in taking overzealous prosecutors, executives, legislators, and even judges to task on things that most people don't care about (the whole constitution thing).
However, they are damned slow. So if we want things to change now we're going to have to fight a social battle. Why are these laws bad for the economy? Why are they bad for national security? Why do they stop academic researchers from discussing topics which will affect Joe Consumer in a couple years, long after he has any ability to stop them? Okay, now explain it to Joe Consumer. If you talk to him the right way, you will persuade him. The vilified large media conglomerates and multinational corps have been very talented at talking to Joe; they have practice. Start talking about his wallet. Start talking about his kids. He will listen. The NYT and other major publications' pieces are a step in the right direction. This is a PR battle. If you stop this law, another will come along until public opinion changes.
Quite off the subject, I thought the design of heise.de/tp/ was exceptional. I like the little identifier symbols next to the links to tell you whether they were local or off-site. I liked the clean, easy to read sidebars, with pull downs that make sense. The download and forum icons were also very intuitive. Great design.
Re:Pssst... hey buddy! Free Linux Certification! (Score:1)