In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jerry McBride
<jmcbride@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:22:51 -0500
<hb1m35xhd3.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>
>> "Shannon Jacobs" <Shannon.Jacobs.nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:f243c99c-7573-4399-8ea8-50860d7a93b9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Dec 17, 11:36 am, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> "Shannon Jacobs" <Shannon.Jacobs.nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
> news:ce177f94-6fa8-40e8-92ce-00decb3af3c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> > Interesting reports there. Mostly just wanted to note that I finally
>>>> > managed to order mine on the reverse twofer offer, and I'm looking
>>>> > forward to finding out if it's as interesting as it sounds. Worst case
>>>> > I'll wind up donating two machines instead of the one... However, I
>>>> > think some of the controversy may be because this really is a game-
>>>> > changing innovation, and of course the players of the old games will
>>>> > object.
>>>>
>>>> Well, happy cranking.
>>>
>>> I hope that I don't have to crank it, and actually that's only an
>>> option, as I understand it. However, I really doubt there's going to
>>> be a big market selling the cranks. The default emergency power supply
>>> is essentially a kind of yo-yo thing where you pull a string for a
>>> while to charge up the battery.
>>>
>>> However, I think the promiscuous networking is the aspect that has the
>>> most potential to shake things up. My understanding is that by default
>>> it will eagerly share its network collection, including relaying
>>> network services for other computers that are farther away from
>>> whoever actually has a wired connection to the network...
>>
>> Well, happy pulling then, and watch out for the RIAA if you are eagerly
>> sharing. Don't admit to anything.
>
> Sage advise from a known windows user...
>
The RIAA, unfortunately, is actively (as of 2005, anyway)
pursuing a lawsuit against a mother whose computer was used
(presumably by someone else -- perhaps one of her children
or a neighbor) as part of a file sharing system, Kazaa.
The case has not been dismissed...and probably shouldn't
be, but the trial might shed some interesting light on a
dirty little secret or two. (Since the article is 2 years
old, I'm not sure what the case's status now is. No
doubt the RIAA have packet logs.)
http://techdirt.com/articles/20051128/207202_F.shtml
On a related note, TorrentSpy is probably facing
obstruction of justice/destruction of evidence charges,
or at least have annoyed the courts sufficiently by making
it impossible to have a fair trial. The MPA is losing
$11B (per year?) globally because of services such as
Torrentspy, or so they claim. TorrentSpy isn't exactly
going to get off easy, though I for one am not sure
if the destruction of evidence was intentional or not.
(With their luck, neither are they; sounds a bit sloppy
on their part...)
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9835333-7.html
And Jammie Thomas has been convicted of 24 counts of
copyright infringement, with a total cost of $222,000
($9,250 per son), plus court costs. The jury stated
that the case was very clear, according to this report.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html
The RIAA is quite clear that ripping MP3s from a CD
is unauthorized activity, even if the results are not
shared to a few thousands of one's closest friends. It is
interesting to contemplate the meaning of "disseminated"
in the context of a pull-system (FTP, HTTP, and BitTorrent
are all construable as "pull-systems" in this context,
though BitTorrent also offers a share area as well,
which allows other users to pull from the subscriber, and
the subscriber probably pulls (logging in) from a master
BitTorrent list, then *pushes* a self-identifier thereto);
the best I can do is either note that the puller is guilty
of criminal activity by stealing, or that merely putting
the file in a disk directory that one can pull from is
dissemination and therefore illegal, if the file contains
certain forms of copyrighted material. Take your pick.
The name is immaterial, if there's a content search
facility. If Metallica's song "Sandman" is under the
name "Fred123.txt" but one can search for and find
"Fred123.txt" by typing in "atheist Metallica songs",
that's good enough for the RIAA, presumably, to prove
infringement (and probably not unreasonable for anyone
else, either). Besides, a lot of unnamed things can be
found by search; check out some of the very ugly global
IDs in Microsoft-based ATL wizard-generated source code,
for example, if one has any handy.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/riaa_trial/index.html
And it's probably going to get worse, as Wi-Fi bandwidth
can be easily stolen from a neighbor's tap with the right
equipment. (Of course, the neighbor is bound to notice
eventually, but apart from replacing that Wi-Fi with a
standard DSL or cable connection, I'm not sure there's a
lot he can do.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
