Slashback: Spamnation, Long-Distance, Libel 201
But sir, all of these songs are under the Open Content License! atta1 writes "In an article on The Register, EasyInternetcafe has lost its court battle against British Phonographic Industry (BPI) over burning downloaded music to CD."
When last mentioned (August of last year), EasyInternetCafe was trying to avoid fines from BPI for letting Internet cafe customers burn to CD music they'd downloaded there.
After all, somebody's got to write 'em. g_adams27 writes "Several weeks ago, Larry Lessig proposed anti-spam legislation he'd like to see Congress pass -- legislation which he was willing to bet his job on. Now it looks like Washington might be taking his bet... and they want us to help out!
A congressional aide appears to be drafting legislation based on Larry's suggestions and is asking the Politech list for suggestions. The proposed law is posted here."
IP leases are nicer than telephone leases. Lots of people were interested in the story posted the other day about VoIP support in GnomeMeeting. I mentioned there that theKompany had a VoIP application for Zaurus owners; Shawn Gordon of theKompany writes with information about a forthcoming desktop version as well.
"So we released tkcPhone a few weeks ago, we found some issues with Net2Phone that we've just finished sorting out today, and we've about wrapped up the tkPhone beta, which we expect in a day or two. Having tkPhone allows us to do some things we couldn't on the Zaurus, like make use of a Speex codec which is part of the Xiph umbrella these days, we couldn't use it on the Zaurus because it requires floating point support. We also can have a system tray notifier and a roomier user interface. Because we spent so much time optimizing everything to work on the Zaurus, it means your desktop performance is going to be very good.We decided to use SIP as opposed to H323 for a lot of reasons: smaller, faster, lighter, newer, easier hardware requirements. So with our phone a regular sound card and a headset/mic will typically suffice for what you need or want to do. Our arrangement with Net2phone means that in addition to PC-to-PC calls, you can make PC-to-phone and PC-to-mobile calls as well. The prices range from free to as little as $0.02 per minute in the U.S. and $0.03 minute internationally. You're already paying for your internet access, might as well start to piggyback this stuff.
tkPhone is not free however, it is $9.95 for the electronic version of the application. We expect to have it up for sale about February 10, 2003."
And as several readers pointed out, if you're interested in VoIP on Linux, you should also check out the sites of both the Bayonne project (mentioned several times before)and asterisk (also discussed here).
You mean they're against my inalienable right to watch movies for free? geekee writes "An article on CNET states that the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA) will include DRM support in the MPEG-4 open standard. Without DRM, the ISMA doesn't believe MPEG-4 will be able to compete against proprietary standards such as that provided by Microsoft since content owners 'want continually improved tools, with rights management.' For instance, Movielink, an online movie rental source, has opted to support Microsoft and RealNetwork formats because of their DRM capabilities. An interesting thing to note is that Apple is a member of the ISMA, and has previously declared its opposition to DRM."
Money talks, and sometimes it says nasty things. scubacuda writes "Since eBay removed the alleged libelous statements, Roger Grace has agreed to drop his libel lawsuit for $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Tim Neeley (who wrote that the magazines he bought from Grace had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised). Interestingly, eBay removed the feedback not because it was 'negative,' but rather because 'the contact information for the seller was not correct.' Chris Donlay, eBay spokesman, says, '[T]hat is one of the circumstances in which we will consider removing the feedback,' EBay attorneys even went to far as to claim that Grace's original lawsuit is 'completely without merit.'"
(Here's the Slashdot post from last Saturday, 'Attorney Sues eBay over Negative Feedback'.)
Ebay ensuring that everyone is happy. (Score:2, Interesting)
spam spam spam (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:spam spam spam (Score:2)
I used to host a domain with ValueWeb a few years ago and they had that irritating "feature" where an email to 'x31qwo9dd@mydomain.com' would fall through to my mailbox since I was the primary contact for the domain. That's one of the reasons I ended up dropping them and going to another hosting provider.
Re:spam spam spam (Score:2)
And you don't have to live with receiving emails to 'undisclosed-recipient@boffo.net' or whatever.
Okay, hands up everyone... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay, hands up everyone... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Okay, hands up everyone... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Okay, hands up everyone... (Score:2, Funny)
The music is better in the porn movie.
plus (Score:5, Informative)
Might I also add (the albeit not particularly well named, IMHO) Linphone [linphone.org].
DRM forced in open standard? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunate if we do... (Score:2, Interesting)
We're on the brink of getting all sorts of content available through the Internet. It is not inconcievable that many of us will actually abandon TiVO, mini-satellite systems, and cable and hook our computers directly up to our televisions to get all of our video content within the next couple of years. DRM in no way hampers our ability to make and distribute video -- it's just a necessary step towards permitting the creators of such content to share their work with us on their terms.
Just as rules about driving are necessary to facilitate the sale of vehicles, so too rules are necessary to protect the investment of content creators that we may be able to experience their work without exploiting it. Rogue mpeg4 would just harm the acceptance of real mpeg4 by Hollywood because it would be seen as a simple way for pirates to ship a comparable movie experience without making sure everybody bought a ticket.
I'm not arguing this is right, but recent history would have a hard time proving this wrong.
Re:Unfortunate if we do... (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason this is a problem is that it stalls innovation. If CD's had working DRM 5 years ago, would we have MP3 players? That may or may not be of interest to you, but an iPod is considerably smaller than a CD player, plus it stores a good deal more music.
Re:Unfortunate if we do... (Score:2, Funny)
I knew it!
I disagree completely (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound like you hold with the idea that people have the moral right to place any restrictions on any content they redistribute. I do not believe this, and as long as you define moral right here as being the greater good for the greater people, the legal opinions have grappled with this in a moral way, and have always upheld the idea that there are limits to the rights we grant copyright holders-- that fair use is still protected.
In essence, we as a society lease provided content to the content providers-- if it is intellectual property, it is owned by the public as a whole. This is why, I believe that the Constitution of the United States of America specifically states that Congress may provide for exclusive rights (aside from fair use as interpreted by the courts) for a LIMITED TIME.
If we are so interested in "Their Terms" then we should go to a model of perpetual copyright. Why not? We do seem to be moving in that direction. And I do not think that all cultural expression should be owned forever.
Re:I disagree completely (Score:2, Insightful)
It's nothing to do with being a moral right -- the whole purpose of copyright is to put incentives in place for people to create new content.
Without copyright, the argument goes, people simply wouldn't bother creating the materials. And it's true!
Before copyright existed, artists had 3 basic options:
1. Get a private person to sponsor your work.
2. Get the church to sponsor your work.
3. Get the government to sponsor your work.
None of these methods are used widely today. Copyright was a legal right instituted in relatively modern times to ensure that, with the collapse of the patronage system, people could still receive sufficient financial returns from their work, and would continue to produce new material.
There are many problems with copyright, yes, but to assert that content providers should have no rights over how their work is used is simply going to drastically reduce the number and quality of creative works in the marketplace.
and:I disagree more (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my corrected list--> insert
1-A real artist, dedicated to his art,no matter what else, makes his own work, because it's just cool, and does it on his own time and on his own nickle.
Amateur vs. professional artists (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we're arguing along slightly different fronts -- we have to distinguish between amateur artists, and professional artists. Amateur artists may well create art 'because it's just cool', but they are primarily creating art for their *own* gratification.
Not for the Pope. Not for anyone else. They probably don't even care if their art gets locked up in their basement. The only thing that matters is that they get enjoyment out of it.
And that's fine, as far as it goes.
A *professional* artist, on the other hand, devotes his or her time to creating art on the basis that others will compensate them for their work. And they have probably only got to that stage by getting sufficient kudos from other people for their previous, amateur works.
*That's* where my list kicks in.
Love art, and create art for free, by all means. But if people are to be able to devote all their time to using their talent to the best of their ability, at some point, they need to be able to get paid for that.
Re:and:I disagree more (Score:2)
In the real world, art takes a heck of a lot more time than people thinks, and it's also a lot more work than you'd think.
I've written two novels and several score short stories (two of them published, which brings my artistic income to around 400 bucks. And I'm 32. So I guess I qualify as an amateur artist).
The thing is, I write because I love it, and because it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when my wife/friends like something I wrote (not to mention the nice feeling of seeing your work in print). But it's hard to be productive when all I have is one or two hours a day to write. Specially since a lot of that time is spent writing garbage (ask any serious writer what percentage of his work is any good). And a lot of daysyou just can't bring yourself to write --you're too tired, mad, sad, whatever.
I could write a lot more if it was my full time job. Alas, it hasn't happened yet.
It's no coincidence that most of the great classics have been written in jail. Or by professional writers. The same goes for music, painting, whatever.
re-read (Score:2)
Still disagree (Score:2)
None of these methods are used widely today.
Hmmm... So I suppose that the various companies that make up the RIAA are not sponsoring bad music? Or Random House is not sponsoring writers with their contracts?
In fact the general complaint is that *just a few* people are sponsoring the VAST majority of widely sirculated works. Sure it is not the exact same as the old patronage system, but I trhink that the Patronage system may have led to better art...
Of course that is what we have the National Endowment for the Arts for, I suppose.
Oh, wait, that is 3. Get the government to sponsor your work. Seems old systems never die.
As for the notion of incentive, I believe the incentive is not just to create new works but also with the price that we all have access to fair use, and that the works eventually become part of the Public Domain.
I think what concerns many of us is that, like software, much of it may be subject to less and less fair use, and will never realy become public domain in any real sense if DRM-based formats are the only ones used. If, in 100 years, most of the movies of tomorrow are no longer accessible, then copyright is failed us.
Re:I disagree completely (Score:2)
No, it's not.
Look for instance at a recent medium, "the Internet". If one investigates this, one finds over one billion pages of free content. True, most of this is legally copyright, as this is created simply by the act of publishing, but since one can simply point anyone to the relevant URL to see it, anyone can access it freely. This includes text, images, music and video, not to mention operating systems.
Also, speaking as one who worked for a book publisher, authors are so desperate to be published that most would sign away their first-born. My boss screwed (in the biblical sense) several authors, and I doubt this was solely becasue of his charisma. Similarly, any bar that will give a stage for a musician will find no shortage of takers.
Many people are driven to create or preform, and the doing of it is its own reward. That's why the publishing and shpowbiz industries can get away with being so explotative of almost all their "talent".
Re:Unfortunate if we do... (Score:2, Insightful)
eBay has removal in their rules. (Score:5, Informative)
The person who sued eBay is an idiot, because eBay removes feedback if a court orders that feedback made by an individual is libel. Don't sue eBay, sue the person.
The way I answered, I didn't have to. (Score:2)
DRM in free video formats (Score:5, Insightful)
What if we had an open-source codec, which was capable of operating with or without DRM? Without DRM we could all use it and be happy knowing we aren't lining any corporations pockets, and don't have to worry about the situation changing in the future. With DRM, companies who wanted to stream secure video would be able to know that the DRM mechanism is secure (because everyone has the code for it!)
Just a thought...
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I believe the names you are looking for are Ogg Tarkin or Ogg Theora.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue I have with DRM is that it can be highly restrictive. If I buy an Audio CD containing an artists music I expect to be able to play that cd in my car, my stereo, on my computer, or other devices capable of playing the audio. I also expect to be able to take the media off of the cd and store it on another medium if I so choose. With DRM as proposed by Sony (and some other companies) we would only be able to use the media in devices that these corporations choose. This is extremly unfair and I believe that because of this these companies should not be supported.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
I personally have a problem with DRM. I won't download anything that has it, and don't like technology that restricts my rights as a consumer.
But is DRM in itself a bad thing? I don't think so - it has uses. Let's say you go to Amazon and buy a DVD. Wouldn't it be nice if you could own that movie before it actually arrived (especially here in Australia, where the shipping time is huge!). If there was a quality codec with reliable DRM, then Amazon could offer your DVD for download, and make that file usable for a few weeks.
More importantly, without DRM, how will the video self-destruct in 5 seconds in Mission Impossible?
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
I wish these guys would come up with more interesting stuff like better presentation (DVD menus are a good start) than trying to lock up the content. It's one thing to crack the content to get the video out, it's another to faithfully recreate the menus etc.
The PC is such a wonderful media tool. They can do so many things with it they can't do with a set-top box. You'd think that they'd be more like the video game market in this respect. If they worked like PC games do, then crackers would have to work on a per-movie basis, as opposed to working on wrecking one protection scheme.
The disadvantage here is that more work is involved, but the advantage is that they have the opportunity to do some really unique things in terms of presentation.
Oh well. The game industry knows what it's doing, Hollywood doesn't.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
I've had several games that I had to find a No CD crack for so I could play the game that I had just purchased. Typically I have the most trouble with Secure ROM protected games.
You need this. [lycos.fr]
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
I don't.
Yeah, content protection really sucks, and the loss of fair use rights is a slippery slope. Unfortunately, for all the flag waving over anti-DRM for content, I have yet to see people come up with a compelling economic system that lets people release their content for free, yet still get rewarded for it.
A variant of the gift economy is the closest I've seen so far, but most people seem to be more interested in making a new, more elite p2p network than actually attempting to address the fundamental problems.
So until we can show that we have a credible alternative, I'm not going to argue with DRM advocates. After all, 99% of people aren't interested in high-falutin moral arguments about fair use rights, they want to steal music and films. If DRM stops them screwing up the system totally while we work on an alternative where DRM isn't necessary, then bring it on I say. Better that than a total system collapse.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
That's true. However, it is not just the fair use rights, it is the problem that for DRM to work, you got to allow a content producer, that is, a cartel in reality, to control everything from production, to the senses of the end user. It is insufficient to control e.g. the soundcard, because you can always record something as the sound propagates through the air. It boils down to the simple fact that you can't use encryption to keep a secret if one of the parties involved has no interest in keeping it secret.
However, what it means if this cartel can control all speech, is that freedom of expression is gone. That means end of democracy, and say hello to totalitarian rule.
This is so bad that it just can't be accepted. Unfortunately, I believe a total system collapse is the only thing that can bring about change, and I'd rather have a total system collapse in the entertainment industry than say goodbye to freedom of expression. I'm also quite sure that academic publishing and public debate will be largely unaffected by such a collapse, as well as many indy bands and stuff, so the real loss isn't that large.
But, I'd much rather come up with some alternative before seeing a total system collapse. But it is clear that we would have to do it...
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Yes and no. The harder it gets to copy things, the fewer people will do it. I suppose you could argue that p2p networks mean only one person has to crack it for everybody to get it, but all they have to do then is crack down on the p2p networks as well. Gnutella may be undestroyable in theory, but if you killed router.limewire.com, it'd be forced underground even more, and Gnutella is hardly user friendly at best.
However, what it means if this cartel can control all speech, is that freedom of expression is gone. That means end of democracy, and say hello to totalitarian rule.
I don't equate free spech with content protection. Copying something for no cost != free speech imo. You can still say whatever you like.
But, I'd much rather come up with some alternative before seeing a total system collapse. But it is clear that we would have to do it...
Yeah :( I wish I had time.......
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
True. But for one thing, I find it strange that harder to copy things is desireable. I think that it should be the other way around, that the cost of copying has been marginalized is probably the most significant progress technology has given us in very many years. It has allowed me to have a production that has overgone my father's 40 years of authorship, easily and with hardly no cost to myself. That is very, very significant.
But of course, there is this problem about getting money from the end user to the author...
The other point that you point out is also very significant, that once a content protection scheme is broken, it cannot be unbroken. Indeed, you can prosecute those who broke it, and destroy the lives of a few teenagers in the process. But then, the alarm bells ought to go off, do we really want to create a society where that is how you enforce copyright?
True. But the real point is that you have no forum to say it, other than (perhaps!) face-to-face conversation. Of course, free speech does not grant a forum. You can't demand to go on CNN to say what you want. But freedom of expression is worthless if you have no forum. If nobody can hear you, even if they wanted, you might as well shut up. That is the problem we're looking at.
I think this is best illustrated by a case where a scientific paper dealt with the genetic differences between jews and palestinians. The research revealed that there were no significant differences at all. The author managed to call palestinian refugee camps "concentration camps", and for that reason, the paper was removed.
It has allready been rumors that Israel has developed biological weapons that exploits the genetic differences between jews and palestinians to only kill palestinians. This paper makes it very clear that this rumor is completely false, it just isn't possible. In a similar manner, it is not unthinkable that Bush will suddenly present "evidence" that Iraq has developed biological weapons to kill only jews. With "content protection", it will be possible to completely remove papers that show that this is impossible. It will become possible to remove any comment that shows that.
Nobody should have that power.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:1, Interesting)
It turns private property (my computer, my media) into "loaned property". I don't think we should even pay it any lip service.
DO NOT support DRM. Don't pay to download DRM movies. Don't even watch them illegally. Support cracking all DRM schemes, but never use the cracks on any content.
And definitely don't put DRM in open-source products.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Problem is, many of rights/conviniences are trampled in the way. Take DVD... the goal is to prevent me from illegaly copying the movies. As a result --
1. I can't *legally* copy the disk for backup.
2. I can't make a MPEG video to keep my DVD on my hard-drive (and let me tell you, my ATI DVD player refuses to start properly pretty often)
3. Somehow I can't even skip FBI warnings, commercials and other crap that plays *every* time I want to watch a DVD (another reason to keep it on hard drive, btw).
Seems like a slight overkill...
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
How do you think DRM works??? Unless the computer is restricted somehow, you can copy any file, any network packet, or any type of data you want. Doesn't matter if it's some proprietary format that uses a special "DRM enabled" player program or if it's encrypted. Anyone can copy the file (or if it's streamed video, capture the packets). Even if the player uses a special handshake sequence where the client and server exchange unique information each time, someone will just crack the player client.
For DRM to even have a chance of working, it will need hardware that guarantees only approved OSs run on it, an OS that guaranteed only approved binaries have access to the DRM data, and a analog watermarking system that guarantees no one can record DRM audio/video by holding a microphone to the speaker and pointing a camera at the screen--or just take away all mics and camcorders.
I don't want them to take away all mics and camcorders! DRM eneabled ones will be almost as bad. Think about it. Every time a tv, billboard or some guy's t-shirt gets in your viewfinder, the camcorder will shut off. Everytime your neighbor cranks up her stereo, you can't use the mic on your computer. In fact, hollywood wants DRM in everything (check out the CBDTPA), so you could be walking down the street, and your cellphone will cut out because someone nearby is listening to music!
I won't even go into how this will allow the software and entertainment cartels to lock out everyone else who wishes to distribute content.
No. (Score:3, Insightful)
They (RIAA, MPAA, et. al.) all need to get a grip on reality and understand that once something is digital, it is going to be zapped accross the globe in seconds. That is the power of the internet.
Pot and Coke, unlike MP3's and movies, are tangable items that take up lots of space, and require airplanes and boats to smuggle into the USA(TM). Billions are spend on the "War on Drung(TM)" and what are the results? A 15 year old can more easily procure Pot than a beer. Slipping "Matrix 5 - Overloaded" accross the globe is a mouseclick or two, no problem at all. My point is that something that can be transported so easily can NOT be stopped. If you can't stop shipments of Pot, how the hell can you stop something that can me shipped instantly and anonomously?
DRM will happen. (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft Windows will remain the most popular operating system in the world, whether you like it or not.
Proprietary, patented video codecs will remain the "de facto" standard, whether you like it or not.
The open source movement is so often full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Open source technologies are not driven by the impetus to make money, the way proprietary technologies are. Thus they will be pushed to the fringes by aggressive, profit-minded corporations who are willing to pony up for the marketing, research and development, partnerships with movie companies, etc. it takes to become accepted.
That's the American Way.
Re:DRM will happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing whatever the hell you want in your own house is the American Way too. Whether you like it or not.
Re:DRM will happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the American Way
But it's not the Chinese or Indian or, bless 'em, the French way. These nations have their own movie culture, their own markets, and their own way of doing things, and lots of clever people. If Hollywood needs protection (DRM) that much, then it's open to market competition. It might take 20 years, but the signs are there. Where do all the DVD players come from? Will kids still be watching "A Fairy Tale Rehashed Part XVII" in 2023? Computer special effects will be easier in 20 years. Pretty actors grow on trees, all over the world. Good musicians do too. They'll work in China or India or France if there's a decent living to be made. This whole DRM lark, trying to solve social problems with technology and lawyers is a symptom of decline, it's not healthy. Of course it's a pain in the bum to live through the next 20 years, so I'm not saying "it will all go away, so don't care about it or do anything" - I'm just pointing out that it might just collapse. Or something. Mumble.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
War on Drung??? (Score:2)
-a
Re:No. (Score:2)
Yum. Open DRM standard. (Score:2)
When is DRM acceptible (Score:2)
Of course, the market will select against it, so we are better not trying.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
$G
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
You understand that DRM and open source don't mix? If you put DRM in an open source video codec, it will be about 5 minutes before someone recompiles the codec to ignore the DRM "rules".
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:3, Informative)
Once DRM is pushed to it's logical conclusion, it will require hardware hacks to defeat rather than software. I think DeCSS history will repeat itself. Some Taiwanese vendor will be in a hurry for a profit and will slip up with an easily tapped system board. Even without that help, the most evil Fritzed crypto scheme will be cracked sooner or later but don't kid yourself that DRM isn't possible with Open Source.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
**shiish secret oggplayer source code
#include<ogg-codec.h>
#include<drm.h>
// dont remove this line above. That would be
// naughty -RMS
First off how? Its opensource and can easily be modified which I may add will probably be defaulted to exclude drm. Why would we want to cripple ourselves?
Also where do we draw the line? If we give these entities an inch they will take a mile. Before you know it we will have hardware and software drm in everything and Linux itself will be jeopardized. Microsoft's palladium is using just this approach. Its all about greed and control. Just like the xbox even the CPU as well as the memory will have encryption built inside it.
Drm is a serious threat and should be illegal before its too late. It may even be already illegal. After all we own our products and a corporation does not have explicit permission to tell my computer not to do "x" when I want it too.
What will historians know anything about us hundreds of years in the future if every document is drmed ? What would happen to Enron or WOrldcom if their drm documents timebombed?
Drm is wrong, immoral, and a threat to not only our freedoms but also our power and our future's. If these entertainment and software companies can boss us around and getaway with it today then it means they can be even more strict authortarian tommorrow. They already tell us what we can and can not do with the hardware we purchase, what will stop them from then claiming we only rent everything further down the road? After all everything we own is copyrighted by someone right? Then we only have a right to use and a right to exist in the world. Scary shit.
Public domain works means they belong to the public and not the copyright producers. Drm is to make it theirs! THe infamous line all our cd's belong to us show us they do not believe and are trying to obliverate the definition of the word copyright.
<p><p><p><p><p><p><p>
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Much of the appeal of OSS is its implied philosophy : the user knows best. As a corollary we get : software should allow the user to do what he or she wants to do. This is a much deeper idea which extends to every technology, and one which can not get appropriate treatment from a slashdot post. It will suffice to say that DRM is in direct opposition to "the user knows best" philosophy, which is probably why people are so ticked off.
The philosophy I stated would not explicitly rule out DRM, since the user would always choose whether to run the code. However if we were to implement DRM, we would be embracing and legitimizing an idea which is a direct contradiction to the open source philosophy. And that is my quick argument for why we should not do it, at least not now.
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, the issue is not whether or not some sort of encrypted file format is supported. If it was just an encryption layer, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that DRM platforms will probably support some sort of restrictions on how that file is used. For example, I may not be allowed to transfer the file to someone else over the internet. If those restrictions are enforced, then I have a technology which is acting against my interests and presumably for some other interest.
You see, all technologies which actually do something fall into two simple categories : technologies which empower people, and technologies which control people. Certainly one person's control is another's empowerment, and sometimes vice-versa. The issue here is this : I don't want to be controlled. Certainly I understand how record executives see the situation. They see the personal computer as a technology which empowers people, at the expense of their control. They feel that they own their recordings, and have the right to dictate how others use them. I feel that I own my computer, and I have a right to dictate how it works. It's all very simple, a question of where their rights end and mine begin, and vice-versa.
As for the rest of your post, it sounds like a rant. Nevertheless, I would like to point out one thing. An acceptable balance between empowerment and control usually provides an option to both parties. If my boss doesn't want to pay me, I can work somewhere else and possibly sue him for owed pay. If my boss thinks he pays me too much, he can try to find a replacement. RIAA and Hollywood are saying "we want to sell you content, and dictate the terms of how you use it". The legal system supports this position, it's not illegal, but do I support it ? Of all the products sold, very few have any strings attached. Up until now, it has been the lack of technology which has enforced the RIAA's and Hollywood's terms. Now that the personal computer has put the terms up for negotiation, why should we simply accept their first offer ?
Re:DRM in free video formats (Score:2)
Yeah, and what if we had a perpetual motion machine?
I wonder how you'd make an open DRM standard. Assume you have some open source "secure music delivery system" transfering an encrypted file. Then I could just modify the decryption program so it wrote the cleartext file to disk instead of playing it.
What you could do is describe the actions allowed on the file in Open Digital Rights Language. [odrl.net] In that way customers could easily respect your copyright - they should simply stick with applications implementing the ODRL spec. If they think copyright law allows actions not covered by the ODRL metadata they could use programs that ignored it (and incur the liability). Of course the RIAA won't back this solution since it doesn't really stop users from sharing the files on KaZaa. (Remember, the RIAA hallucinates that it's possible)
This solution comes closest to the linguistic meaning of "Digital Rights Management" - it's about having the computer assist you in managing the rights you have acquired.
You could do open source DRM on the TCPA platform, but then your app must be certified by a vendor trusted by the music shop. That solution has lost several important characteristics of open source, and I refuse to call it an open standard.
Apple's involement with ISMA (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it should be noted that Apple will find any alternatives necessary to avoid DRM. This isn't one of those huge developments that completely shifts a company's views on a certain matter. Apple will simply find another way...
Re:Apple's involement with ISMA (Score:2, Informative)
If you check out ISMI's members page [www.isma.tv] then you'll see it lists Apple as one of six 'sponsor members'. Futhermore if you look at the board of directors page [www.isma.tv] then you'll see that each of these companies has one board member.
So presumably Apple controls 1/6 of ISMI - so they'd need to get at least 2 of the other companies on their side to oppose DRM in MPEG4 sucessfully.
Re:Apple's involement with ISMA (Score:2)
How do you know that?
So far, Apples "anti-DRM" stance has consisted of some PR statements and not being gung-ho about integrating it. I've yet to see a hard "just say no" stance. Indeed, if it really is just a social problem, then why does the iPod make it difficult to copy music from it to iTunes? Surely that's a useful feature for customers to have - but they don't make it easy.
When Apple do more than simply tell their customers what they want to hear, then I'll be impressed. Until then, it seems very much that Apple say one thing, then go and do whatever makes sense for them to do as a corporation, which is exactly what I'd expect.
Question (Score:4, Insightful)
When will they be willing to "help us out" and get rid of the DCMA?
eBay wimps out (Score:2)
On the subject of eBay (Score:3, Interesting)
Beats me how selling a physical object can be copyright violation, and I thought that part of buying something was the right to sell it. Unlike Google and Slashdot, eBay has no balls. (Granted they gave in, but in a way that the Happy Fun Cult really wouldn't have wanted.)
Re:On the subject of eBay (Score:2)
Proposed email subject lines. (Score:5, Interesting)
After taking the time to read the proposed law concerning spam, I have to say that it seems to be fairly well thought out (with one exception that I'll get to in a second). The requirement that there be a subject line beginning with either 'ADV:' or 'ADULTADV' is spot on what I would like to see more than anything else. If such a requirement could be enforced, it would be incredibly simple for ISPs to allow you to configure your email account so that any message with such a subject line be automatically deleted, or better yet, rejected by the mailserver as delivery is attempted. I'm not sure exactly how the latter would work with standard mail daemons, but I'm sure someone would code for it.
The other requirements and restrictions mentioned are perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, but subject line requirements would go a long way towards relieving the burden of both users and ISP who have to prrocess mail.
I'd also like to see open mail relays be made illegal , but the technical challenges of writing such a law in a way that didn't unintentionally totally screw things up beyond belief is probably too bug a hurdle for legislators to deal with.
The main problem with laws such as these is that they just will not work. Forged 'from' headers (also dealt with by the law) exist in spam because it is so universally hated. It is dangerous to post spam from your real address. This is why many spammers make use of unsecured overseas servers to spew their garbage. Without the cooperation of the foreign countries, it is going to be difficult, if not impossible to police or enforce this without the rest of us falling prey to unintended consequences like some ISPs disallowing the use of mailing lists because they are afraid of some nebulous FUD that will be spread about the consequences of such a law no matter what it actually says.
I hate spam as much or more than anyone, but it is my firm opinion that national laws are no more than mere annoyances on the internet.
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that almost all spam is already originating from overseas, this would clean up most of our problems. Let everybody else deal with their stuff on a country-by-country basis. If they agree to our standard and promise to prosecute spammers in their country that dump their stuff in ours, whitelist their nation.
It's already required in CA... (Score:2)
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:5, Interesting)
(I suppose that the SMTP server, upon seeing Subject: ADV could send a tcp-reset as the next packet and hope the sending end shuts up, but still not as nice as above)
I, as a service provider, should have the right to reject all ADV messages. If my customers don't like that policy (that would be clearly spelled out), they could move to a different provider (one which might accept micropayments for receiving ADV messages, which would bring down the cost of service to the customers, making *some* of them happy.)
I think Lessig will be looking for a job...
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:2, Funny)
If all unsolicated commercial emails included "ADV:" in the subject lines, then most users, ISPs, and email programs would automatically delete those easily identifiable emails. That is not fair for those of us who are just trying to make a living sending unsolicated commercial emails!
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they won't work. But that's not the point. SPAM is not a technological problem. It's a social problem. Technology alone can't solve it. And, unsurprisingly, the law alone can't solve it. But combined, there's hope.
The reason that I want a law against spam is to continue to keep spammers using fake email addresses. To keep them from going to actual email addresses. If spam is illegal, then there's a disincentive to be easily tracked by using a real working email address. Why do I want spammers from using real email addresses? Because the most effective way I've seen to block spam is TMDA [tmda.net]. And it's spam blocking ability depends on spammers not having working email addresses.
TMDA requires users to authenticate themselves by verifying that they can be tracked to a working email address. If they can, then they can send me email. Spammers don't do this. So they don't get into my mailbox.
But if everyone started using TMDA, then there would be an incentive for spammers to start using real mailboxes in order to get around the fact that everyone is blocking them. But a law which disincents getting tracked makes TMDA stronger.
The fact that a law, alone, won't fix spam doesn't mean that it won't help. And, frankly, I think the technology needs help, because this is a much harder problem than technology is accustomed to solving alone.
$.02
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. That looks like an interesting program, bookmarked for reference when I have time to look at it in detail.
It seems kind of similar to what I do now. I have a whitelist of people/mailing lists that make it to my inbox. The rest get automatically dumped to a 'SPAM' folder that I look at every few days to make sure I haven't missed anything important, and add any address to my whitelist if it is a new address that I want to read mail from.
How does it work with mailing lists or similar orgs that I might sign up to get email for? Since there is no real person sending from that address, or a majordomo of some kind, I would think you might inadvertantly gum up the operation of such things.
Re:Proposed email subject lines. (Score:2)
For what it's worth the TMDA documentation on the web site is pretty good. As for me, I tend to use TMDA sender addresses to subscribe to mailing lists. More details here [tmda.net]. And, of course for anything more complicated than the docs can handle, there are the TMDA mailing lists [tmda.net], which can be accessed without subscribing through GMANE [gmane.org]
Once you've gotten a little bit comfortable with TMDA, this [homeunix.net] is a pretty good reference for using it with mailing lists.
Good luck.
Still focuses way too much on the technical side (Score:2)
The main thing making SPAM illegal will do is it will make it easier for ISPs to be proactive in preventing SPAM from entering their systems. It will also allow them to make quicky SPAMer accounts harder to get. Right now, they can't really do either at least in the states without supposedly infringing on the SPAMer's right to free speech. Make SPAM illegal and that argument goes away. It also means that ISPs can take other actions such as filtering incoming e-mail again without worrying about complaints about limiting free speech. The ISPs have an incentive to do this to save on bandwidth and storage plus they can probably charge extra for providing the SPAM filter. Think about how many Nigerian money scams you've gotten and you'll get an idea of how much bandwidth and storage we're talking about for stuff that is easily identifiable as pure SPAM.
This still won't eliminate overseas SPAM but it will make it much less profitable and that is all it takes to cut down on how much of it is generated.
Man am I confused.. (Score:5, Funny)
How many of those are typos and how many are actual product names?
Can't figure this one out (Score:2)
Spam bill could have had more teeth... (Score:3, Insightful)
And then there are the exceptions, which include (surprise surprise!) political campaign solicitations.
Re:Spam bill could have had more teeth... (Score:2)
You forget that spammers will simply stop sending messages if none of them get through. Filtering "ADV:" subjects is so easy that it would be done instantly by all ISPs, putting spammers out of business. The question is whether spams will really be tagged.
Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.
No, you'd make sure the end-user will never see the spam. Today it wastes both human time and network bandwidth. The first is easily the most expensive (or will be soon).
more SIP phones (Score:3, Informative)
- Linphone (http://www.linphone.org/ [linphone.org])
- SIPSet (http://www.vovida.org/ [vovida.org])
Neither has g.729a support, though, so they're not going to work with net2phone, i don't think.Do not remove this tag... (Score:5, Interesting)
Better get that closed, guys... wouldn't want Larry to lose his job.
Not a loophole (?) (Score:2)
I think that would make a pretty bad defense. Citing the proposal: [politechbot.com]
No person or entity conducting business in the United States may electronically mail, or cause to be electronically mailed [...] unsolicited advertising material [...] unless the subject line of each and every electronic document or message includes ''ADV:'' (My emphasis)
You could hardly have used a tag-stripping relay by accident, and so you have consciously "caused" tagless mailing.
Also note that the clause permitting normal internet routing applies only "to the extent that the tele-communications utility or Internet service provider merely carries that transmission over its network."
A relay that actively modifies subjects would hardly be able to use that defense...
Find the bug (Score:3, Funny)
If ($movie->{MPEG4Header}{isCopyProtected} = 0) {
$movie->play();
}
Re:Find the bug (Score:2)
$movie->play();
I've fixed the bug.
Re:Find the bug (Score:2)
$movie->play();
}
The bug here is not necessarily that you used = instead of ==. Your statement assigns the value 0 to isCopyProtected, true, but the assignment operator returns the value it assigned to the variable. In other words, if it successfully assigns the value 0 to isCopyProtected, its return value will be 0, and so using this code, your movie will not play. Another way of making this code "work" instead of using == would be to set isCopyProtected to 1.
A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposed law is a bad idea. With any proposal like this, you have to look at the unintended consequences. Right now we have two problems. Filtering, and volume. This "solution" would not remove the filtering problem (90% of the junk you're getting now is coming from overseas and/or illegal--they aren't going to pay attention to the law), and it would dramatically increase the volume problem.
Re:A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:2)
If all spam was ADV-tagged (unlikely) it would all be filtered out and the spammers would go out of business. No more bandwidth clogging then after all.
Tagging all spam really would solve the problem. Too bad it's so hard...
Re:A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The concept of opt-in is someone signs up for it. You describe a situation where one opts a third party in. While this is annoying, it is no different than one signing a third party up for every bit of junkmail in exsistance. It is not the fault of the sender.
2. Ok, this is simple to effect. Add it to the law.
3. True on the first part. Second part makes a large assumption with no supporting facts.
4. This argument fails on the simple fact that most spam is legal.
While the law is not perfect, it is not a bad law. Instead of just finding faults, submit comments on it that suggest solutions. As far as increasing volume, you are making an assumption. Please support this with facts if you want it to be taken seriously.
One thing I noticed is that it has no provision for requiring valid FROM: lines and a valid return email address. I believe both the (market|spam)er and the adveritiser should be required to have a valid email address, that goes to a real live human, for complaint. That should be a requirement for ANY anti-spam legislation.
Re:A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is the fault of the sender. Methods exist that confirm that the sign up really came from the individual signing up. If the law doesn't include a requirement that the sender confirm the sign up and keep records of the same its a bad law.
And that doesn't mean simply sending me a confirmation that I'm signed up, it MUST require that I respond and confirm that I want the information. No response, no signup.
Re:A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:2)
I see a problem with this in that if you give out your email address to any business at all then they could sell some sort of "business affiliation memberships" to direct marketers effectively selling lists of addresses. Yeah I can see some loopholes in it.
One thing I noticed is that it has no provision for requiring valid FROM: lines and a valid return email address. I believe both the (market|spam)er and the adveritiser should be required to have a valid email address, that goes to a real live human, for complaint. That should be a requirement for ANY anti-spam legislation.
I agree with this. Opt out needs to be possible by replying to a valid email address. In addition there should be a provision similar to telemarketing that if someone can prove that they asked to be taken off the spammers list already yet continue to receive the unsolicited offers then the sender should be fined.
And there should be a way to opt out of all unsolicited offers from a spam factory and all its affiliates. As is already true with fax machines, there should be a provision that all email servers MUST correctly identify themselves upon initial contact with the receiving server using the name/address of the server which is sending the message. This is already spelled out in RFC821:
But spammers often dont identify themselves or misidentify themselves. If this is implemented then we can reject messages from hosts whose identities can't be verified through DNS. In this way we can filter spam from an entire domain such as ValuePornOptInOffers360.com.Re:A very *bad* anti-spam law (Score:2)
As opposed to what we have now, where every spam email I get says "you agreed to receive this...", yet I have NEVER checked off (or failed to uncheck) a box saying "send me blah".
No standardized mechanism for opting out
We already have laws in quite a few states requiring a valid opt-out address, and look how well *THAT* works... Anyone stupid enough to try and use the opt-out info in spam gets added to 10 lists for every one they get removed from.
Anybody can send you unsolicted email so long as they put "ADV" in the header.
Which will suffice. How long do you suppose it will take EVERY major email program vendor on the planet to have a default option of "automatically delete messages with ADV: in the subject"? And even if they don't, such a simple and consistent string will take no effort whatsoever to manually filter. Hell, just on the ISP side, I'd say within a year of this law passing (which I unfortunately see as unlikely), 90% of mail servers won't accept such messages.
Forgive my sarcasm, I do agree with you that this doesn't *totally* solve the problem of spam, particularly spam from other countries. It will, however, almost guarantee the instant death of US-originated spam, and I consider that a good thing.
For those who need to do business with Taiwan, this won't help. For the rest of us (who *already* block anything.tw, it will make the amount of mail we actually need to think about drop by 99%. Perhaps most of your spam comes from companies you can't completely block, but my own mostly comes from the US.
And, even those companies using foreign mail servers to send spam, but actually based in the US, will need to comply. The wording of the bill would require the ADV tag even on mail sent on their behalf by a third-party or foreign spam service. So I think this really could work.
do just fine
The Slashdot editors still have it wrong (Score:5, Informative)
misrepresents the truth and perpetuates a falsity first published in the original post [slashdot.org]. Neely did not buy anything from Grace - Grace bought the magazines from Neely. It even says so in this article [siliconvalley.com] which is referenced above!
So, just in case anyone is wondering, this has never been a case of a merchant suing a customer for negative feedback.
Best part of the anti-spam bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only they kept that in mind all of the time...
Apple: history repeats (Score:2, Interesting)
History repeats?
Re:Apple: history repeats (Score:2)
not copyright, antispam (Score:2, Interesting)
That EasyInternetCafe thing... (Score:2)
They are effectively in the same situation as EasyInternetCafe in that they provide internet connectivity and a CD burner. It would make sense that they could end up in the same position as EasyInternetCafe (not an easy name BTW) and be sued by the BPI. Especially now that the BPI has won what was effectively a test case.
When word of this spreads I can see a lot of worried managers and admins going round removing CD-R drives from PC's soon.
Personally I think the BPI is trying to scare businesses and colleges up and down the country in to adopting a CD-R levy system to keep the BPI happy. I am thinking along the lines of the levy university's in the UK pay on library photocopying facilities. IIRC 1 penny per photocopy goes on this 'license' and is distributed amongst book publishers. In return students and staff are allowed limited rights to photocopy sections of textbooks.
Imagine a similar system for CD-R's. The BPI (or maybe the MCPS or PRS) would go to a business and say. "If you give us £1000 per year, we will let your employees burn music on to CD-R, if you don't pay us we'll sue you". Its a little bit of blackmail, but its gets the recording industry money it wasn't getting before.
I'm probably wrong, but its what I can't help thinking ever since the judgement was made.
BPI says harms performers: EasyInternetCafe (Score:2)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29069.html [theregister.co.uk]
This may only be true for a small minority of very rich and famous performers.
I find it hard to sort out what is true about this but one thing
that carries a sound like conviction is the statements that
recording artists in fact, in the main, with the exception of
the hugely rich, don't get any money from the record companies
for sales of their CDs.
I don't have _authorities_ for this, but singer Janis Ian's
articles in Performing Songwriter Magazine, May 2002 and later
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
and
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html [janisian.com]
make persuasive arguments for it. It would be nice to see some
more detail and actual figures, broken down by number of bands
receiving range of amounts of money, for instance.
So the argument there, which derives from experience with Jim
Baens Free Library (of SF books) http://www.baen.com/ [baen.com] is that
"performers have more to fear from obscurity than from copying".
Ms Ian put her money where her mouth is by setting up free
downloads of some of her songs,
http://www.janisian.com/mp3_downloads.html [janisian.com]
(I think "Cosmopolitan Girl" is funny.)
Re:That EasyInternetCafe thing... (Score:2)
Ah, I overlooked that, now it makes sense.
Conspicuously missing in the spam bill: (Score:2)
Pass that into law, and POOF! No more spam. Spam only works because the sender can hide in relative anonymity. Of course there are exceptions, but this would rid America of the run-of-the-mill penis enlargement for the purposes of having sex with hot teens and their naughty housewife mothers while sending out envelopes to get rich quick to save money to send to Nigeria emails.
Furthermore, anything pornographic should be OPT-IN!!!!!! $500 fine for the first violation. I'm for free speech, but that doesn't give you the right to put sexually explicit email in front of my kid.
Even furthermore, it should be a jailable offense to hijack a mail server for the purposes of sending out spam. Make the spammers pay for the use of special spamming servers, which we can all blackhole and forget about.
All in all, though, this proposed law is a DAMN sight better than nothing. Congress will enact somthing like this eventually, it's inevitable. They owe nothing to the porn or penis enlargement industries, it's a perfect case of low hanging fruit feel good legislation that everyone will love and costs them nothing politically. They're just slow to act on anything involving technology.
In short, it doesn't go far enough, but if it passes I'll be happier.
Re:Does anyone else find Apple's stance odd? (Score:3, Funny)