Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Commerce Dep't to Hold Public Workshop on DRM

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the digital-rights-bottleneck dept.

Security 139

ttyp writes: "The United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration (TA) announced a public workshop on digital entertainment and rights management. They're taking public comments here according to the announcement, but they sure have hidden it well. Can anybody find the form? The deadline is July 11!!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836165)

I am a frequent visitor to slashdot and also an avid supporter of anonymous free speech online. However I noticed something VERY ODD regarding slashdot. I use ad-aware on my Windows XP system, and it found the double click cookie. Here is a summery of the doubleclick SPYWARE cookie from pest patrol:
===
A spyware cookie. Cookie is used to track unique visitors to many different sites, and their "preferences."
Online ad company DoubleClick used Web bugs that could communicate with cookies from its Web site. The cookies then revealed past online behavior, even home addresses, IP addresses, and phone numbers to the bugs, and the bugs sent that information straight back to DoubleClick.
A company can also use the bugs to tie cookie histories to personal identifying information, such as your phone number and address. In fact, a California woman sued DoubleClick for just that behavior. The company bought another firm, Abacus Direct, which holds detailed consumer profiles on more than 90 percent of U.S. households. DoubleClick cross-referenced its spyware results with that database to compile surprisingly personal profiles
===

As one can see double click is a DANGEROUS piece of spyware, which totally removes privacy and hijacks ones computer and all it's information. After I removed the doubleclick TROJAN from my otherwise secure and updated winXP pc I went to slashdot and noticed I WAS LOGGED OUT. Slashdot also uses SECRET 1 pixel gifs in it's advertising system.

The only answer is that slashdot is WORKING WITH DOUBLECLICK's spyware software and selling millions of personal profiles of its users to fund it's OTHERWISE UNPROFITABLE business. I find this to be detestable and immoral behavior especially for a site that claims it supports peoples RIGHTS TO PRIVACY. My only course of action is to use other linux resource sites and to make sure slashdot.org is BLACKLISTED as a spyware-installing site. It is a sad, sad day when you cannot visit a freedom-loving site without having your computer HIJACKED.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836177)

simple solution jackass. Turn off your cookies. Or wash them. At least be informed when you piss and moan.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836223)

Dear George W Bush.

Please bomb the fuck out of tribal councils who advocating gang-raping, or any sorts of raping.

Thank you.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836254)

>tribal councils who advocating gang-raping

Except that that tribal council [bbc.co.uk] was in Pakistan, who are our best friends, remember?

I mean, it's not as if they're a corrupt military dictatorship or anything - remember, in the war on terror you'r either with us or against us. And if you're with us, you can rely on us turning a blind eye to your own domestic issues... Just ask the Saudis! (another paragon of democracy and freedom, who we should be proud to have on our side)

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836400)

Hahahhah. Redundant and Overrated. Someone doesn't like their mod points finding M2 ownage.

Gotta laugh. Pansies.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836539)

Conventional bombs are too good for them... Napalm them...

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836237)

Of course if you were really an "avid supporter of anonymous free speech online" rather than an idiotic troll, you wouldn't have had cookies turned on in the first place, and you would've had doubleclick aliased out in your hosts file long ago.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836245)

that doesn't take away from the fact that slashdot is guilty of SPYWARE.

you do not understand the seriousness of this

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836246)

I understand that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know the difference between a cookie and active spyware.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837718)

you're obviously a russian terrorist who supports spying on anyone.

Re:slashdot guilty of SPYWARE (0, Troll)

blinov2000 (590842) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836274)

visit my site [rockefeller.ru] it's absolutely safe

blah (-1)

FreshPondPhil (576222) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836179)

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Cum Guzzeling AC's are dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Cum Guzzeling AC's community when IDC confirmed that Cum Guzzeling AC's market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all trolls. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Cum Guzzeling AC's have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Cum Guzzeling AC's are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [goatse.cx] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [goatse.cx] to predict Cum Guzzeling AC's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Cum Guzzeling AC's face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Cum Guzzeling AC's because Cum Guzzeling AC's are dying. Things are looking very bad for Cum Guzzeling AC's. As many of us are already aware, Cum Guzzeling AC's continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

First Post Cum Guzzeling AC's are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core trolls. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time First Post Cum Guzzeling ACs I'm going to kick your ass when I see you guy and Post Frist only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: First Post Cum Guzzeling ACs are dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Chode swallowing AC leader AC states that there are 7000 Chode swallowing ACs. How many ass reaming ACs are there? Let's see. The number of Chode swallowing ACs versus ass reaming AC posts on Slashdot are roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Ass reaming ACs. Ball licking AC posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of Ass reaming ACs. Therefore there are about 700 Ball licking ACs. A recent article put Chode swallowing ACs at about 80 percent of the Cum Guzzeling AC's market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Chode swallowing ACs. This is consistent with the number of Chode swallowing ACs Slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Chode swallowing ACs went out of business and was taken over by Shit eating ACs [goatse.cx] who post more worthless drivel. Now Shit eating ACs is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Cum Guzzeling AC's has steadily declined in market share. Cum Guzzeling AC's are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Cum Guzzeling AC's are to survive at all it will be among troll dilettante dabblers. Cum Guzzeling AC's continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Cum Guzzeling AC's are dead.

Fact: Cum Guzzeling AC's are dying

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:

Browser type

User ID/Nickname or Filthy AC

What steps caused this error

Whether you used the Back button on your browser

Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy,

or any sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously

How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day

* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category! Thank you.

fuck! (-1)

on by (572414) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836180)

fuck me now, fuck me hard!

Just show up (3, Informative)

KrazyFool (534528) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836183)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information relevant to the substantive issues to be addressed by this workshop may be obtained from Chris Israel Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, Technology Administration, (202) 482-5687. Limited seating will be available to members of the general public. It is recommended that persons wishing to become general public attendees arrive early, as seating will be first come, first served.

Also (4, Funny)

KrazyFool (534528) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836203)

I would think sending an email to Public.Affairs@ta.doc.gov [mailto] would work also.

Show up in large numbers (3, Interesting)

Jedi Creed (590140) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836229)

Having more people show up would be a good way to show that many people really do care about these issues. Even if only some of them are allowed into the session, the masses quietly waiting outside will make a statement.

Re:Show up in large numbers (2)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836656)

It may be a good idea to "elect" the people that will be allowed in, to make sure there are some effective voices to be heard. Then the rest could mill around outside with signs and slogans.

Re:Show up in large numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836747)

Well, that's sorta cool. You're going to set up an election, and then assign 'marshalls' to only let in the people who your organisation has 'elected' to send in as observers?

I'm glad we put you guys in charge of the procedure. Lord help us if people at random from the public were allowed in.

Monotony Report 20020507 (-1)

on by (572414) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836195)


Monotony Report - scroll to bottom to see the totals for all
of the stories - MonotonyReport (c)2002 on by.


Report for: Slashdot | Russia Wants to Launch Manned Mission to Mars
Total Comments: 472 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 214 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.2056
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.053452 (449:24) (5.0847% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • iamblades (26 posts 5.5085%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Asdfghanistan (12 posts 2.5424%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • guttentag (2 posts 0.42373%). too few words per line
  • cybrpnk2 (2 posts 0.42373%). too few words per line
  • dsb3 (2 posts 0.42373%). too few words per line
  • WIAKywbfatw (2 posts 0.42373%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Get Ready For The Simputer
Total Comments: 244 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 112 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.1786
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.1086 (221:24) (9.8361% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • WetCat (14 posts 5.7377%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Asdfghanistan (13 posts 5.3279%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • big.ears (2 posts 0.81967%). too few words per line
  • metlin (2 posts 0.81967%). too few words per line
  • vkg (2 posts 0.81967%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | The Nokia 7650 Cell Phone w/ Integrated Camera
Total Comments: 143 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 78 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.8333
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.082707 (133:11) (7.6923% noise)
First Post: Cryptopotamus this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • SpatchMonkey (10 posts 6.993%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Cryptopotamus (4 posts 2.7972%). stupid filters too few words
  • on by (4 posts 2.7972%). stupid filters too few words
  • Asdfghanistan (4 posts 2.7972%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • stirfry714 (2 posts 1.3986%). too few words per line
  • dracvl (2 posts 1.3986%). too few words per line
  • QoluB (2 posts 1.3986%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Is There Such a Thing as "Too User Friendly"?
Total Comments: 645 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 363 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.7769
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.035256 (624:22) (3.4109% noise)
First Post: balloonhead this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • neuroticia (75 posts 11.628%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • cmdr_shithead (54 posts 8.3721%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • neuroticia (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • Preposterous Coward (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • yintercept (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • Darth_Burrito (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • evenprime (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • Patrick13 (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • FyRE666 (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line
  • ryanvm (5 posts 0.77519%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Cryogenic Mouse Mod
Total Comments: 160 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 85 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.8824
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.15827 (139:22) (13.75% noise)
First Post: on by this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • TheBahxMan (6 posts 3.75%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • TheBahxMan (6 posts 3.75%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • SirSlud (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • Triumph The Insult C (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • GuyMannDude (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • inburito (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • stirfry714 (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • zemaxuser (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • codewolf (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • Comrade Pikachu (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line
  • Safety Cap (1 posts 0.625%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Seiko TV Watch is now 20 years Old
Total Comments: 134 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 67 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.13445 (119:16) (11.94% noise)
First Post: Ferrum this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by a dumbass. FP not at -1 at all
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • balloonhead (10 posts 7.4627%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (4 posts 2.9851%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • Xzzy (2 posts 1.4925%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Blender Goes Open Source
Total Comments: 186 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 105 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.7714
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.1 (170:17) (9.1398% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (10 posts 5.3763%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (10 posts 5.3763%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • BRock97 (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • Cryptnotic (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • digitalhermit (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • cow_licker (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • HomerJ (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • Gordonjcp (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line
  • JediTrainer (2 posts 1.0753%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Review: Men In Black II
Total Comments: 440 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 228 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.9298
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.094293 (403:38) (8.6364% noise)
First Post: Alec_Baldwin this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • rirugrat (21 posts 4.7727%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • News For Turds (9 posts 2.0455%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • Theologian (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • CptNerd (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • MeowMeow Jones (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • JoshWurzel (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • Masem (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • Juhaa (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line
  • Kraft (3 posts 0.68182%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Is Profiling Useless in Today's World?
Total Comments: 217 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 104 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.0865
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.048077 (208:10) (4.6083% noise)
First Post: Sexual Asspussy this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • pthisis (30 posts 13.825%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Sexual Asspussy (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
  • News For Turds (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
  • donnacha (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
  • SpatchMonkey (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
  • Paraplegic Vigilante (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
  • xdfgf (2 posts 0.92166%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • pthisis (8 posts 3.6866%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Sony Hard Drive Recorder for Cars
Total Comments: 252 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 148 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.7027
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.032653 (245:8) (3.1746% noise)
First Post: Cubeman this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Skyshadow (10 posts 3.9683%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Adolf Hitroll (4 posts 1.5873%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • Cryptnotic (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • Paradise Pete (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • gmhowell (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • tempmpi (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • oman_ (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • Radi-0-head (2 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Danish Court Rules Deep Linking Illegal
Total Comments: 370 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 194 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.9072
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.036313 (358:13) (3.5135% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Penguin (18 posts 4.8649%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • SpatchMonkey (18 posts 4.8649%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • TheBahxMan (9 posts 2.4324%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • User 956 (6 posts 1.6216%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Serial ATA and Serial SCSI
Total Comments: 133 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 53 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.5094
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.28846 (104:30) (22.556% noise)
First Post: News For Turds this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • TheBahxMan (8 posts 6.015%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • TheBahxMan (8 posts 6.015%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • SpatchMonkey (1 posts 0.75188%). too few words per line
  • gerardrj (1 posts 0.75188%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Sync Your iPod on Linux
Total Comments: 167 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 75 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.2267
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.19149 (141:27) (16.168% noise)
First Post: News For Turds this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • News For Turds (5 posts 2.994%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • yerricde (5 posts 2.994%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • News For Turds (5 posts 2.994%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • foobar104 (2 posts 1.1976%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Estimating the Size/Cost of Linux
Total Comments: 195 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 92 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.1196
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.2327 (159:37) (18.974% noise)
First Post: News For Turds this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • News For Turds (16 posts 8.2051%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • News For Turds (16 posts 8.2051%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • damiam (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line
  • tps12 (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line
  • pubjames (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line
  • dbretton (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line
  • msevior (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line
  • Twylite (2 posts 1.0256%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | IEEE Drops DMCA Reference in Authors Copyright Form
Total Comments: 58 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 36 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.6111
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.18 (50:9) (15.517% noise)
First Post: handybundler this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Adolf Hitroll (3 posts 5.1724%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • Big Dogs Cock (3 posts 5.1724%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Adolf Hitroll (3 posts 5.1724%). stupid filters too few words
  • Big Dogs Cock (3 posts 5.1724%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • Jucius Maximus (1 posts 1.7241%). too few words per line
  • larry bagina (1 posts 1.7241%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | More Strange Bose-Einstein Condensate Behavior
Total Comments: 126 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 69 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.8261
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.13393 (112:15) (11.905% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Alsee (3 posts 2.381%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • f00Dave (3 posts 2.381%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • mgv (3 posts 2.381%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • roybadami (3 posts 2.381%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • anonymous cowfart (2 posts 1.5873%). stupid filters too few words
  • Cuckoo Cocoon (2 posts 1.5873%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • HiQ (1 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • NoNeeeed (1 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line
  • BoBaBrain (1 posts 0.79365%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | KDEvelopers on KDE Users
Total Comments: 179 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 82 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.1829
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.125 (160:20) (11.173% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Coward this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by an AC. an AC posted and it got modded to -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • mgkimsal2 (10 posts 5.5866%). lameness sucks junk chars
  • redtuxxx (10 posts 5.5866%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • anonymous cowfart (4 posts 2.2346%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • Sheetrock (2 posts 1.1173%). too few words per line
  • Jondor (2 posts 1.1173%). too few words per line
  • Rogerborg (2 posts 1.1173%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | 3 Megabit Cable Modems, Anyone?
Total Comments: 301 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 151 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 1.9934
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.14394 (264:38) (12.625% noise)
First Post: on by this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Fucky the troll (33 posts 10.963%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Fucky the troll (33 posts 10.963%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • forged (3 posts 0.99668%). too few words per line
  • Rogerborg (3 posts 0.99668%). too few words per line
  • linuxlover (3 posts 0.99668%). too few words per line
  • NiftyNews (3 posts 0.99668%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | New Amiga Hardware Runs Mac OS
Total Comments: 330 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 122 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.7049
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.11448 (297:34) (10.303% noise)
First Post: Anonymous Cowrad this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • Mike Bouma (20 posts 6.0606%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • anonymous cowfart (4 posts 1.2121%). stupid filters too few words
  • Big Dogs Cock (4 posts 1.2121%). stupid filters too few words
  • xdfgf (4 posts 1.2121%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • rakslice (2 posts 0.60606%). too few words per line
  • OneFix (2 posts 0.60606%). too few words per line
  • David Kennedy (2 posts 0.60606%). too few words per line
  • Graymalkin (2 posts 0.60606%). too few words per line

Report for: Slashdot | Isn't it Time for Metric Time?
Total Comments: 1641 total number of comments posted
Total Posters: 809 total users who posted
Average Posts per user: 2.0284
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.023053 (1605:37) (2.2547% noise)
First Post: Pr0n K1ng this person got the FP!
  • Claimed by CLiT. a logged in troll posted and it is at -1
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in): who posted the most comments
  • CProgrammer98 (110 posts 6.7032%). lameness sucks junk chars
Most Noise (-1, logged in): who posted the most comments that are at -1
  • Anal Cocks (25 posts 1.5235%). stupid filters too few words
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in): who got modded up to +5
  • coyote-san (15 posts 0.91408%). too few words per line

*** Report for Todays Front Page ***
Total Comments: 6393
Total Posters: 2481
Average Posts per user: 2.5768
Signal:Noise ratio 1:0.075826 (5961:452) (7.0702% noise)
First Posts:
  • AC: 6
  • CLiT: 13
  • Dumbasses: 1
    • Victory to the CLiT!
Most Prolific (all scores, logged in):
  • SpatchMonkey (177 posts 2.7687%).
Most Noise (-1, logged in):
  • cmdr_shithead (55 posts 0.86032%).
  • Fucky the troll (55 posts 0.86032%).
Biggest Whore (+5, logged in):
  • coyote-san (15 posts 0.23463%).
Top 10 Posters (all scores, logged in):
  • SpatchMonkey (177 posts 2.7687%).
  • CProgrammer98 (110 posts 1.7206%).
  • cbr372 (98 posts 1.5329%).
  • neuroticia (83 posts 1.2983%).
  • scaryman (80 posts 1.2514%).
  • os2fan (74 posts 1.1575%).
  • mpe (72 posts 1.1262%).
  • Malc (69 posts 1.0793%).
  • mindstrm (68 posts 1.0637%).
  • seeken (64 posts 1.0011%).
Top 10 Noise Makers (-1, logged in):
  • cmdr_shithead (55 posts 0.86032%).
  • Fucky the troll (55 posts 0.86032%).
  • Big Dogs Cock (43 posts 0.67261%).
  • News For Turds (39 posts 0.61004%).
  • on by (37 posts 0.57876%).
  • MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (34 posts 0.53183%).
  • Asdfghanistan (33 posts 0.51619%).
  • Anal Cocks (27 posts 0.42234%).
  • TheBahxMan (27 posts 0.42234%).
  • YourMissionForToday (22 posts 0.34413%).


I'm Back! (-1)

DeezyChee (587489) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836196)

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down.

If you think this is unfair, please email jamie@mccarthy.vg with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "9e87e3550d148036550d148037" and "4ea4f34e61e0ed724e61e0ed72fff3a9" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "192.151.6.106" and your username "DeezyChee".

sux huh? (-1)

on by (572414) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836207)

i'm ipid banned at the mo - what a pain in the ass...does it stop me? NO! fucking wankers!

National Medal of Technology (3, Informative)

pmsyyz (23514) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836197)

From http://www.ta.doc.gov/Medal/default.htm [doc.gov]

The National Medal of Technology is the highest honor bestowed by the President of the United States to America's leading innovators.

Guess who won it in 1992?

http://www.ta.doc.gov/Medal/Recipients.htm#1992 [doc.gov]

William H. Gates, III., Microsoft Corp.
For his early vision of universal computing at home and in the office; for his technical and business management skills in creating a world-wide technology company; and for his contribution to the development of the personal computer industry.

Competition crushing monopolists sure promote innovation.

Re:National Medal of Technology (-1)

DeezyChee (587489) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836217)

That's right, suck it and like it. OSS will never compare to Microsoft products for 3 reasons:

1. Compatibility. Everyone writes programs for Windows, period. Yeah, sometimes the Mac zealots cry until they get a game or two a year after initial release, but that's the only exception. Remember the Loki debacle? LMFAO! It made Enron look like an honest mistake!

2. Future. Microsoft is here to stay. Even *if* Microsoft somehow dissapeared, their products are still here, and will be for quite some time. If you don't believe me, look at Netware and any company that still runs it (every major banking firm still runs it as well as most companies that have been around before the .bomb craze).

3. Past. Microsoft has been around since the early 80's, and DOS (which is what Windows is based on) has even earlier roots. The source for Windows originated from the early MacOS (80's again), and MacOS has it's roots from the Xerox GUI, which is early 70's. When was Lunix started again? 1995? 1996? 6 fucking years and it has yet to run one single Microsoft app! WTF kind of POSIX complience is that?
I rest my case.

Re:National Medal of Technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836231)

What a dumb ass.

Re:National Medal of Technology (1)

Arminius (84868) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836487)

The name is Dumass!

Re:National Medal of Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836236)

Amm... Linux was started in 1991 (?). It didn't get 'popular' until around 1995 (?).

Now, Linux is based on the *idea* of UNIX, so while Linux may be just "Linux", it is also a UNIX box.

ie: you're comparing 2 different worlds, the Windows world and the UNIX world.

Now, traditionally, Windows was always a toy operating system in the eyes of anybody who ever worked on a UNIX. And, in many ways, it is still just a toy.

Re:National Medal of Technology (-1)

DeezyChee (587489) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837528)

Amm... Linux was started in 1991 (?). It didn't get 'popular' until around 1995 (?).

OK then, 11 years, and it still doesn't have a standard GUI, none of it's browsers are w3c complient and/or don't support Javascript, and STILL can't run Win32 apps. Eat it.

Now, Linux is based on the *idea* of UNIX, so while Linux may be just "Linux", it is also a UNIX box.
ie: you're comparing 2 different worlds, the Windows world and the UNIX world.


Huh? OK, it's a cheap copy of UNIX that doesn't comply with UNIX standards and is not trying to corrupt desktop standards. Thanks for clarifying that.

Now, traditionally, Windows was always a toy operating system in the eyes of anybody who ever worked on a UNIX. And, in many ways, it is still just a toy.

Ah, I see. You don't understand Windows, therefore it's considered a "toy" OS, as in OS dilettante dabblers. IMO, it's just the opposite: Linux is the toy, and Windows is the established standard. What is the MCSE? I guess people spend money to learn about toys, huh? And why isn't there a Lunix equivilant? Maybe because the only way to learn it is "playing" with it in their parent's basement?

Re:National Medal of Technology (2, Insightful)

dimator (71399) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836238)

Dude, BillG/Microsoft only suck in the eyes of the people who actually know the sleazy tactics they use to operate (usually, tech-oriented people, software developers, etc). Their products only suck in the eyes of people who are smart enough to compare them with competing software.

The rest of the world (businessmen, congressmen, your manager, your neighbor Joe) all see a successful, huge company, the richest man in the world, and products that have shiny boxes.

Re:National Medal of Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836759)

Bill Gates only sucks in the eyes of the angry little pack of 'sysadmins' who find themselves increasingly irrelevant as each day passes. That, and the angry fat 'Wordperfect Expert' in each office who has lost her 'guru' status because nobody cares any longer that control-alt-leftshift-F9 capitalizes selected text.

Re:National Medal of Technology (2)

Ogerman (136333) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837085)

The rest of the world (businessmen, congressmen, your manager, your neighbor Joe) all see a successful, huge company, the richest man in the world, and products that have shiny boxes.

No, actually most casual users of computers are really sick and tired of the problems they face on a daily basis and are eager to learn about alternatives. Keep up the M$ badmouthing campaign, folks. The general public is slowly starting to see the light--at very least, that M$ software is buggy crap.

Re:National Medal of Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836286)

Bill Gates was less evil in 1992.

Re:National Medal of Technology (4, Informative)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837034)

In 1992 Bill Gates deserved the medal. His vision of computing was much more coherant than the visions of other industry leaders of that time. Take into account some of these factors:

1. This was before the Internet. Sure, some people in universities and some large corporations had Internet access... but mostly it didn't exist. If we wanted to communicate we used bulletin boards (like FidoNet) and 300bps modems;

2. This was before Linux and in the infancy of the GPL;

3. Unix was fragmented into dozens of incompatible versions each of which was priced out of the reach of mortal users (over $1,000 for SCO Xenix, as an example);

4. Novell owned the small business network environment and charged over $1,000 for their operating system;

5. Virtually no one had any idea what email was or why they'd need it.

In this period of time Gates appeared to be leading us out of the wilderness of Big Computing Iron and giving us what we wanted (and needed). Who could have seen then the course MS would take in the years after this award?

Re:National Medal of Technology (2)

schmaltz (70977) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837140)

Actually, Gates' company produced a couple of operating systems
that were the popular platform built upon by many software and tech "innovators" ( for "leading us out of the wilderness of Big...Iron...".

Take, for example, Borland, whose catalog at the time included Turbo/Borland C++, Pascal, Paradox, dBase III/IV, Quattro, (Wordperfect? still confused about that :), and
a few years afterward Delphi, which was a real visual development AND programmers tool when compared next to Microsoft's Visual Basic and Basic products.

There was also Stac (had they been squashed flat by MS by that time yet?), Norton, Novell Netware (expensive, yes, but fast, widely accepted, and little alternative in the market.)

Microsoft's Word hadn't yet reached market saturation and Wordperfect was still kicking it. Windows was, what
3.1, 3.11? Just a couple years past Windows 386 and Windows 2.x, yeesh.

Gates arguably had a role in building a finally-decent platform for medium-to-large memory model apps (Windows 386/3.1x), and was finally begining to
bring hardware vendors' drivers into the installer, but prior to that point you were
dependent upon the manufacturer's distribution diskettes.

No, the PC industry of 1992 was the sum of its parts, not the product of one individual, or even his company.

Re:National Medal of Technology (1)

rworne (538610) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837808)

I don't know about what technology you used, but I ditched the 300-baud modems back in 1983-1984.

In 1992, I had a 2400 baud modem that was replaced by a 14.4k modem sometime soon afterwards.

so... (2, Flamebait)

david_g (24196) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836213)

How many people who bitch here about DRM will actually send a comment?

Re:so... (0, Offtopic)

Textbook Error (590676) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836259)

6.

Re:so... (2)

tunah (530328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836317)

Dunno, a lot of us aren't from the US.

Re:so... (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836455)

And by the look of things will never be there!

I think i prefered pre-glasnost URSS to nowadays USA...

At least they where fair... you where always guilty! No questions asked... In today USA it depends on who you are, how much money do you have and in the prossecutors interpretation of a lot of misleading and badly worded laws!

Cheers...

Re:My Vote.. (3, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836332)

I vote with my pocketbook. I was shopping for a new GPS. I found the Magellan Meridian line use the SD card instead of one of the cheaper more popular cards for map storage. I would like a GPS with removable media for easy changing between topographic and street maps, but I refuse to support that memory format. I refuse to buy products using secure media. This includes SD cards, MMC cards, and the Sony Memory stick. I don't need or want to support 6 diffrent styles of memory card. Products must meet my specifications or it's no sale. So far I only support Compact flash and Smart Media. I have no intention on increasing the spread of non-interchangable parts. When I upgrade my camera, I will drop the Smart Media format.
CD Recordable became popular because it was almost universaly interchangable. Sony MD is much less useful as they have a Data format and a Audio format that is not interchangable. I also voted against this format. I went CDRW in a CD/MP3 player instead. It was worth the wait. CD'r has left Sony MD's in the dust. Compact Flash can do the same thing to the SD card. Be sure to vote!

Re:My Vote.. (1)

SN74S181 (581549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836771)

Well, gee. Maybe you should only support computer hardware that is built with common multi-sourced parts, like the 7400 series of TTL chips. You sound like a purchasing agent. Are you sure you're not the one blocking us from getting PCs that have USB ports on them? (recently you've been requiring the vendors to put black electrical tape over the connector or receiving refuses to let them off the dock)

Re:My Vote.. (3, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836960)

Maybe you should only support computer hardware that is built with common multi-sourced parts, like the 7400 series of TTL
You missed the point. The new stuff is a downgrade, not an upgrade. It's memory. For more than the price of a 128 MEG compact flash card, I can get a slower more expensive 64 MEG SD card. In a pinch I can't use the card in my camera because it's a diffrent format. Use the faster cheaper more flexible and compatible format in your product and you have a much better chance of selling me your product. The SD format is not making faster higher capacity memory cards. They are making slower cards at a higher price that do not support all common file formats and will not work in my USB card reader/writer. (which supports 3 of the six formats) In short it cost more, does less, works slower, and is not interchangable. Show me an upgrade in that. If you think that is an upgrade, I will love to sell you my external floppy drive from my old tandy M100. It's single sided, with 2 sectors per track. It will not work with 1.4 meg floppies. If interested in this secure storage solution, drop me a line. Buying a card that will not store an MP3 or JPEG but encodes it into something else is not useful for me. Check out the reviews of the 20 Gig Nomad MP3 Jukebox. Check out it's number one complaint. It takes way too long to upload MP3's into it because it supports DRM and changes the file format. Now if it would just be a USB data drive to the PC without the DRM junk, they could sell a bunch of them because they would be more useful and would be much faster. By not supporting odball formats at higher prices is to encourage manufactures to drop the pricey hard to sell stuff for faster more featured stuff at better prices. Think about it, would you like to upload your data using a common USB card reader/writer, or would you like to have to upload the stuff at 19.2K baud. Think about it next time you download your digital camera. (You have tried to download a RS 232 serial megapixel camera haven't you? I upgraded and gave my old camera away for free. No more 20 minute downloads per 8 MEG for me. Don't even consider a 64 Meg transfer in a slow serial format!)
Don't consider using anything with less capacity and slower speeds at higher prices.
That is why I am not considering those models of GPS. It uses a format I refuse to support for the reasons listed. May the format die a quick death. The sooner it dies, the sooner we can get faster higher capacity compact flash at cheaper prices. There is economy in scale. Fracturing the memory market into 6+ formats makes all the specialty items expensive. I want far away from the market fragmentation.

Re:My Vote.. (1)

rworne (538610) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837881)

Then I suppose Garmin would suit your needs, they have a non-secure proprietary flash memory. As an added bonus, they sell them at proprietary prices too!
(approx $2/MB on-line prices)

Just because Sony and MM-card formats have versions that support DRM does not mean you should boycott all forms of the format. There's plenty of support for the Meridian and the SD-cards in the GPS forums because it gets away from low availability of media and lowers prices for both the manufacturer and the consumer.

And what do these formats mean to you as a camera user? MM, SM, CF, MS are all standard, the only time they become a burden is when you wish to change camera models to one that uses a competing format. I've never seen a camera that enforces DRM on the removable media (and that includes Sony). DRM and secure cards are in the realm of portable music players, especially those by major manufacturers. Heck, even Sony allows non-secure memory sticks to play MP3's in it's MP3-playing Clie palm units, they require Magic Gate only for the ATRAC3-format files.

These various formats exist for reasons other than who is making them or DRM-style screwing-over of consumers, namely size. Standards are great, but we cannot always make do with one-size fits all. Just refuse to support the DRM versions of the cards. Simple enough.

Try the email address: (1, Redundant)

theolein (316044) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836215)

here [mailto] is an email address on that page where the public can send comments. I don't know whether it's the right one, but since that site is collecting comments and has no form you could just try mailing them, if only to ask where the form is.

Re:Try the email address: (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836239)

maybe that's their way of getting commens: hide the form, then say "well, nobody posted, meaning nobody cares about the issue... lets just pass the damn thing" They put it there; it's not their fault that nobody but the RIAA & MPAA could find it. Hmm...

From the document (5, Insightful)

molrak (541582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836224)

From the doucment:
"Topics to be addressed at the workshop include:

[rtrif] The effectiveness of efforts to pursue technical standards or solutions that are designed to provide a more predictable and secure environment for digital transmission of copyright material;"


Let's see, so far the efforts that content providers have created to secure content include:
Macrovision - prevents authorized and unauthorized copying of video content, also adds signal detioration--status: hardware cracks exist, may be negated by content providers abandoning it due to its inability to do anything of value
CSS - DVD's digital protection--status: cracked by Norwegian linux users
SDMI - Watermaking/digital music protection--status: cracked by a professor, stalled in deployment by its creators
'secure' cds - prevents pcs from ripping cds, causes macs to expolode--status: cracked, felt tip marker

[rtrif] Major obstacles facing an open commercial exchange of digital content;

The industry itself seems to be the major obstacle.

[rtrif] What a future framework for success might entail;

A lessening of the current insane and ridicuously long copyright laws in the United States; abolition of the music industry in its current form
Or, value added content, or value priced content using a working protection scheme

[rtrif] Current consumer attitude towards online entertainment.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Re:From the document (2)

Technician (215283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836362)

Let's see, so far the efforts that content providers have created to secure content include:

Don't forget to include the SDMI compliant music devices using secure memory products. These include devices using the DataPlay mini CD format, the sony MD player, and the SD Card. Read the specs on this toy. The memory card supports SDMI. Garmin and Magellan are both using it in some of their models of GPS'es.
Too bad I'll be avoiding these models. I was hoping for a format I could upload to a card using a fast USB card reader instead of having to upload maps by serial port speeds, but it's not the case. Borrowing a card from the Handheld PC or GPS or MP3 player for a wedding shoot in a pinch is not an option with closed non-interchangable formats. I am standardising on Compact flash just for these reasons. I'm letting the manufacture know my decision of the supported format and the reason for it. Sigh.
Press release regarding SD cards is here;
http://www.sdcard.org/press3.htm
Note this latecommer format has smaller memory sizes avaliable at higher prices than the established memory formats. SD cards are just now breaking the 128 Meg size. They are way behind the Compact Flash Cards in bang for the buck, avaliable sizes, and widespread use. Dataplay appears to simply be an optical version of this.

Re:From the document (1)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837129)

Homeboy, you're must be scratched because you keepskipping [slashdot.org] .

Remember: Write... And Be Polite! (5)

stuffman64 (208233) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836228)

The worst thing any of us can do is flood them with comments like "DRM Sucks CowboyNeal's Dirty Toes" and the like. Be professional and curtious, and allow your concerns to be heard. Although I do not support any of today's proposed DRM technologies, I feel it is important to protect the artist's (as opposed to the profit-hungry record company's) interest.

Whatever your stance is, however, Be Sure to Write! Someone probably will read your comment and take it into consideration, as long as you are professional about it. Now that we have the opportunity to be heard, be sure that we are.

That's the big issue, isn't it? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836247)

Protecting the artist's interest.

In a perfect world, we'd just send artists money directly. All sorts. Musicians, authors, actors, CowboyNeal.. Remember, DRM isn't just about the music industry, though they'll be the biggest proponent behind it. I don't think the publishing and movie industry are that worried about being 'hard hit' by piracy, at least not like the RIAA. Publishers have had to deal with libraries, and box offices have had to deal with Blockbuster.

But they'll be looking into DRM as more authors are willing to risk the snickers of their collegues and start to publish online, and *if* broad pipes ever become a reality to home users, Dreamworks and friends will start looking at distribution of movies over the 'net.

Now, back to artists. Bands get squat from cd sales, and unless they're top 40, they don't even get much advertising from the bloodthirsty corps. Authors? As any good author can tell you, unless you're a marketing gimmick, or have been around for years, you'd best have a day job. Movies, well, there's one thing they've got going for them - a home theatre will never equal a *real* theatre. :) But even there, though most movie stars get a good deal in terms of pay, unless you're one of the 'top celebs', you probably aren't getting paid enough.

Sucks, doesn't it? But think about this: With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally. One can argue that a person who steals (Not pirate. I don't see anyone with eyepatches, damnit!), wouldn't pay for such content anyway, but I'll not argue that anyway.

Why? Because, DRM is coming. We can fight gloriously and lose, or we can cut our losses and give them input on how it should work. Don't let the bloody warcries on the death of the RIAA/MPAA/etc. dissuade you from tossing these guys some input. It could very well make life much more bearable until we do finally get rid of them. ;)

Re:That's the big issue, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836272)

You should go to Hollywood and start auditioning. There's a "gutless weasel" role in most action flicks.

Clueless bastard

Re:That's the big issue, isn't it? (3, Insightful)

e-gold (36755) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836345)

Disclaimer: I have a crass-capitalist-commercial interest in convincing folks to do as I say below. (IMO, it's also better for the artists' interests, too, but I'm told that's debatable.)

In a perfect world, we'd just send artists money directly. All sorts. Musicians, authors, actors, CowboyNeal.. ...

I can't offer a perfect world, but I've repeatedly offered a way of sending money directly to artists. www.radsfans.net [radsfans.net] is an example and I suspect others will pop up soon.

If you look at the typical online tip (of whatever sort) you might get as a musician compared to what you'd end up with from a RIAA-member-pressed CD being sold, this might make financial sense. I wish I had a huge, silly dot com budget to promote the idea all over college campuses, but I don't, and the idea of paying for something -- even voluntarily, for something you like -- isn't as appealing as "free" (as in beer).

If anyone wants to try e-gold, send me an acct.# and I will click you a bit of it (not much, though). Hopefully, you'll find it useful. Perhaps the idea of musicians online getting tips right now will also help "our side" in the broader "DRM" issue, too. I hope so.
JMR

I speak only for Jim Ray, userid notwithstanding.

Re:That's the big issue, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836668)

DRM won't insure that anyone makes money except the RIAA/MPAA. Artists won't make a penny more with drm than without.

Re:That's the big issue, isn't it? (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837990)

DRM won't insure that anyone makes money except the RIAA/MPAA. Artists won't make a penny more with drm than without.

More likely they will make less. The "advance" recording artists are given by their record companies having an additional clawback of "DRM charges"...

Re:That's the big issue, isn't it? (2)

ibbey (27873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3838259)

With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally

That's exactly the argument the RIAA uses. Of course it's absolute bullshit, but obviously people still believe it, otherwise you wouldn't have repeated it.

In the long run, artists gain nothing from DRM (Hell, even movie studios don't put much faith into it [slashdot.org] ).

Consider that the average high-end artist makes about $.35 per CD sold (most earn less). So, after selling 1 million CD's, they have made $350,000. Now, consider if the artist put their CD on the web, DRM free, for $3.50. Now, instead of selling 1 million, they only have to sell 100,000 copies to make the same amount of money. Are some people going to pirate the CD then would otherwise? Probably. But not 90% more. And Far more people will shell out $3.50 for a CD then would pay $18 for the same CD. Even those pirated copies aren't that bad since people will be telling each other about it (Maybe put a short blurb before the first song: "Like this? Go to www.artist.com to support the artist.")

In the long run, record companies are doomed. They know this, but they are trying to put off the inevitable for as long as possible with pointless technological tricks like this. Most of their artists buy into the party line simply because they are not technologically savvy enough to know better. But once a few big name artists try it & do well, the whole house of cards will come down.

One more quick comment about this scheme (in case anybody is thinking about trying it): DON'T GET GREEDY! This ONLY works if the downloadable copy is priced as an impulse buy. $3.50 is about the highest you can go. More then that, and people WILL start to think "Why buy it when I can pirate it?". But at $3.50 (better yet, $3) or less, it's easier to just pay for it then to deal with the hassle of finding a copy of it. Remember, $3.50 is at least 10 times more then the record companies pay, so be happy with it!

Re:Remember: Write... And Be Polite! (2, Informative)

Amizell (565760) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836258)

Coincidentally I had just typed up a nice message for the customer service department at MusicNet. I thought it was only fair that I check out their service, just in case it might be a viable product. Not to worry: upon examination it's just as bad as it seems like it would be. This note may be one notch less than polite but they are valid questions that the industry needs to address.

Hi. Just a few questions:

1. You fail to mention the bit rate of your content anywhere on the site. 128k I assume? Or worse?
2. You don't offer any way for me to see what I might want to download from your catalog. How do I know if you have what I want (hint: it's not necessarily Britney and nsync). If you don't have the song I'm looking for do I have any other option besides going to four or five other major label marketing machine sites until I happen on the one that has the music I want? Then I have to register again, download another client, pay again, etc...??
3. How does your software enable CD burns and rips that are "faster than ever"? I thought my drive limited the burn and rip speeds and my CPU limited the encoding speed.
4. What happens if a download stops before it is finished? Do I get my download credit back? What if I don't like the song?
5. What if I DO like the song? Can I get a higher quality version without going to Tower? Can I burn anything I might hear on your site? Even streams?
6. Does your software collect any information about me, my listening or my surfing habits? Can it be disabled? Is it going to install some inane and unecessary "download manager" which will play commercials without asking me while taking up loads of my precious screen real estate? Can it be easily uninstalled without ending my subscription?
7. Is the video content encoded in an unbearably small resolution with a low frame rate and accompanied by tinny low bitrate sound? Can I fast forward and rewind at a reasonable speed? Why shouldn't I just turn on my TV? Can you make sure it doesn't drop out while I'm watching? I hate that.
8. Why would a consumer want to shell out $10 a month for a product that is of inferior quality compared to an ordinary CD? If I buy the CD then I can do what I want with it, including backing it up for security, giving it to my friends on a mix tape, digitally encoding it without DRM in any format and quality I want, urinating on it, etc... I would NEVER put it online. But I could do all that other stuff without breaking the law, right?

If anybody there can give me some reasonable answers I will plunk down my money for a month right now. It looks to me like your service is highly limited, expensive for what it is and inconsiderate of my personal privacy.

Alex Mizell
Atlanta, GA
music fan, sound engineer, dj


Don't even THINK about adding me to a mailing list. I opt out.


Re:Remember: Write... And Be Polite! (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837662)

How does your software enable CD burns and rips that are "faster than ever"?

RIAA Exec: "Apparently this 'Alex Mizell' character is immune to our marketing gimmicks."
RIAA IT minion: "I'll flag him as UNPROFITABLY_INTELLIGENT in the database right away Sir!"

--

Re:Remember: Write... And Be Polite! (1)

PsychoI3oy (237745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837214)

" The worst thing any of us can do is flood them with comments like "DRM Sucks CowboyNeal's Dirty Toes" and the like."
Saying that is kinda like saying "don't troll on slashdot". i.e. the same people that pay attention to the rules and common decency will of course make nice comments, and the rest of the 13 year old morons out there have already filled the mailbox beyond full with above comment and "digitally manage THIS! [goatse.cx] " type email.

although i'm wondering who's rights are in the "digital rights management" term, the artist's or ours?

Stuff Polite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3837220)

Say what you think. The best thing you can do is to think about what want to say. Dressing up your thoughts in "professional" diction won't conceal ignorance or poor reasoning. The public is invited to comment. You are the public. You don't need to profess anything. Simply say what you think.

Re:Stuff Polite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3837229)

p.s. Use the Preview Button. Think about what you want to say, and Use the Preview Button.

Completely Unnecessary (5, Insightful)

ewhac (5844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836248)

Great. Once again our "elected" officials are fellating the monied interests and giving them exactly what they want, regardless of whether or not it's actually necessary. And I can think of few things less necessary that government-mandated copy protection.

I can't begin to describe how infuriating it is to sit and watch this happen. Every time there's an "open" discussion of the issues surrounding digital copying. there is always an unstated assumption that it is something that must be stopped/controlled/regulated/quashed, and how best that can be accomplished. The very idea that, "The Sky Is Not, In Fact, Falling," is never brought up.

Let us be clear: Everyone agrees that artists should be rewarded for their good work. The dissent centers around whether copyright is any longer the best way to provide that reward. I contend that it isn't. First off, it doesn't scale. When there are only a handful of people with a printing press, it is reasonable to expect them to be cognizant of each other's "property" and avoid infringement. However, every computer is the equivalent of a printing press. With hundreds of millions of presses out there, all turning out copyrighted works (by the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted upon creation), it is mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.

Second, these legislative initiatives are being pushed because the respective industries claim to be losing money to unsanctioned copying (incorrectly referred to as "piracy"). However, these figures are complete fabrications, since they are attempts to measure events that never happened. No independent study of the effects of unsanctioned copying has ever been done. Heck, the industry's own claims have never been subjected to even the most rudimentary critical analysis. And yet these "reports" are being taken as gospel. The story is being repeated so many times, people are starting to believe it's true.

Third, the idea that solution is to "clamp down" is, at best, extremely suspect. Consider the dawn of the automobile, when society had known nothing but the horse and buggy. Automobiles were loud, smelly, and moved far more quickly than their organic counterparts. It is easy to see how the initial reaction would be to "clamp down" on automobiles: To pass laws prohibiting them from travelling faster than 30 miles/hour (somewhat below the top speed of a horse); to mandate that engines have governors to physically prevent them from going faster than 30 MPH; to require radio tamper switches to report if anyone attempts to defeat the governor; and to authorize and provide for police on every street corner to monitor the speed of automobiles, and incarcerate anyone caught exceeding the established limit. Though some would claim it impossible, you could, in fact, incur the financial and social costs and make such a system work.

...Or, you could raise the speed limit.

One of those solutions is much less costly and much less destructive to the social fabric we've struggled to create and grown to enjoy.

We now find ourselves at a similar crossroads, where a new technology is upsetting the old order. "Solutions" are being discussed. And the idea of raising the speed limit is being assiduously kept off the agenda. One is forced to wonder why.

Schwab

Re:Completely Unnecessary (2)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836261)

excellent commentary. Well written, etc., etc.
but.... You are preaching to the choir....send that in, let them hear your voice!! (well, words written in electronic form anyway)

Re:Completely Unnecessary (1)

PinkSchizoid (264768) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836302)

Excellent analogy with an even better conclusion. Nice job. Unlike the former commenter, I don't believe much more is necessary. I think /. comments are already being read, copied, and archived. But then again, I'm paranoid.

Re:Completely Unnecessary (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836315)

Everyone agrees that artists should be rewarded for their good work.

Right. Artists [imdb.com] need to eat too. :)

But what if the artists could "pirate" their food for free? What if they could warez their easle and paintbrushes? What if they could go off-grid with SPS solar power? What if they never needed medical care because their newfangled artificial immune system and fountain-of-youth magic? What if they could build themselves a nice palace from freely available molecules with no effort (in the ocean, away from rent-hungry landlords)? What if their AI-helper did most of their thinking and creating for them? What if they could download Lucy Lu from Nappster into a robot? Ahhhhhh! Free Beer is the root of all evil! (I was going somewhere with this... but got lost)

--

Re:Completely Unnecessary (1)

freaq (466117) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837027)

I also have a gut reaction that copyright doesn't scale, but that's not a reasoned argument on my part. The nitpicker in me couldn't pass up pointing out this apparent non-sequiter in an otherwise excellent argument...
With hundreds of millions of presses out there, all turning out copyrighted works (by the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted upon creation), it is
mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.
How does the number of presses out there affect whether or not I am aware that the information I publish is (a) my own creative effort or (b) someone else's, and therefore infringing?
Or am I missing something in the definition of infringement?

Re:Completely Unnecessary (2)

ewhac (5844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3838228)

...it is mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.

How does the number of presses out there affect whether or not I am aware that the information I publish is (a) my own creative effort or (b) someone else's, and therefore infringing?

Perhaps I could have been more precise by saying, "mathematically impractical," for the same reason it is mathematically impractical to crack encryption systems.

In this specific case, the combinatorial explosion kills you. From math, you may remember the number of possible permutations of a set of n objects arranged in groups of k elements is given as:

n!
-------- = n_P_k
(n - k)!

Thus, as the number of elements increases, the number of possible permutations increases factorially.

Now, as the owner of printing press/computer k, you need to make sure that the output work n infringes on no other item n. This becomes factorially hard as n increases. Add in the fact that infringement can be entirely subjective, and it gets even messier.

Note well: It is entirely possible -- nay, highly probable -- that I am talking out my ass, and that the strict permutation formula used above doesn't apply here. However, it seems to me that, in order to maintain strict uniqueness among n objects, the work of comparing and testing that uniqueness is probably of order n! difficulty.

Schwab

Re:Completely Unnecessary (2)

HiThere (15173) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837105)

I have e-mailed a modified version of this to Public_Affairs@ta.doc.gov (an e-mail address). I hope that it's the right address. All I really know is that it didn't bounce within 5 minutes, which doesn't prove much. But it is the link that operates on their web page.

And they do request that comments be sent there. Still, as far as I know, it might be /dev/null

Re:Completely Unnecessary (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3838032)

I can't begin to describe how infuriating it is to sit and watch this happen. Every time there's an "open" discussion of the issues surrounding digital copying. there is always an unstated assumption that it is something that must be stopped/controlled/regulated/quashed, and how best that can be accomplished.

There is also a very telling comment on the story "They're taking public comments here according to the announcement, but they sure have hidden it well. Can anybody find the form?". Which sounds very much like the idea of having a "public meeting", where the time and venue are unknown to the public.

Let us be clear: Everyone agrees that artists should be rewarded for their good work.

Actually there isn't agreement in where between "paid minimum wage" and "guarenteed income for their grandchildren" a line should be drawn. Using the term "rewarded" also tends to imply some divine right for the creator to make some sort of profit.

The dissent centers around whether copyright is any longer the best way to provide that reward.

In the US "copyright" isn't sacrosanct anyway. The US Congress is under no obligation to create a copyright law in the first place.

Form (2, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836256)

Did the submitter even read the workshop announcement? From the announcement:

DATES: This workshop will be held on July 17, 2002, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Herbert C. Hoover Building,
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC. Entrance on
14th between Pennsylvania and Constitution Aves., NW.
In other words: There is _NO_ form.

Re:Form (2)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837064)

I dunno about you, but when an organization decides to hold a public workshop regarding the legal future of modern computers and electronics, I assume that its 'online presence' will be more than just a page giving the meatspace address. But since this is the US government we're talking about, this sort of thing isn't too surprising.

Re:Form (1)

ttyp (180849) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837698)

You have to read the whole announcement:

The workshop will focus on these and other related issues. Anyone
wishing to comment on these or raise related issues is free to do so,
either in writing before the meeting, or in person at the meeting.
Prior comments will be collected via the Technology Administration Web
site--www.ta.doc.gov/

Re:Form (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837761)

hehe.. sorry. I guess I should have read the entire thing before replying.

The General Public vs Stakeholders (2)

visualight (468005) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836282)

Ok, so this is going to be a series of moderated meetings between the Commerce Dept. and the "stakeholders". Why do I suspect the only stakeholders included will be the **aa's? I call bullshit.

Who can represent us? There has to be someone the Commerce Dept. rates as a "stakeholder" that doesn't work for Disney. EFF?

Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders (5, Interesting)

agentZ (210674) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836517)

I live in the Washington DC area and am a computer crime investigator with one of the federal agencies based here. I also care a lot about this issue and will be attending this meeting. Given my credientials, I should be able to get in without being labeled as "one of those long-haired Linux freaks." (i.e. They might listen to me. Yes, sad as it is, law makers don't speak geek and don't believe anybody who isn't from "their" system.)

If I get the chance to speak at the meeting, I'm debating what I should say:
  • As a federal agent, enforcing the laws on DRM would be impossibly hard. The bad guys are just going to break whatever system you put out there.
  • As a law abiding, but busy guy, I like the convenience of downloading music on-line and putting it on my iPod when I go jogging (to stay in shape and help defend America from terrorists. Okay, that last part is implied, but it would curry favor with the types on this kind of panel.)
  • Forcing everyone to use DRM will stifle innovation as it limits the uses of the music. JXL would never have been able to get an editable copy of Elvis Presley's "Little Less Conversation" to remix into the new cool tune he put out. (Yes, I know JXL went through all of the licensing hoops, but IMHO it's a good example of something that would be denied to ordinary people if DRM is universal.)
Does anybody else have any other ideas? I'm open to suggestions.

Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836837)

Read the comment above yours entitled "Completely Unnecessary" by ewhac -- the guy has some excellent points.

Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837196)

Let me suggest a starting point: Content publishers should not be permitted to use technology to add restrictions above and beyond what copyright law gives them.

Specifically,

  • It should be illegal to place copy-control restrictions on content broadcast over the public airwaves. Attempts to do so take away a right that the Supreme Court gave the public in the Betamax case, and Congress gave the public in the Audio Home Recording Act. The FCC should thus prohibit copy control in content sent by broadcast stations.
  • It may be a illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade, under antitrust law, to require manufacturers to license a copy-control system in order to build content players. Such restrictions will artificially force up the price of consumer electronics and hurt the economy. Aggressive enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts by the Justice Department is indicated here.
  • In general, digital-rights-management technology must not be used as an end-run around the antitrust laws. Using such technology to prevent the introduction of compatible products is illegal under current law, and that law should be enforced. In severe cases, use of the forfeiture provisions of the Sherman Act would be appropriate as a means of timely action against such violators.

Keep in mind that DRM is *not* just for music! (1)

StupidKatz (467476) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837334)

DRM potentially affects all types of data -- ALL types. So, music, public documents, operating systems, videos (publicly available, etc.), games (i.e. backups of), and potentially even things you, the user, create!

I'm sort of waiting for the day when I get a call from a user who had to rebuild her/his PC, actually had backups(!!), and suddenly can't use the backups because "this is not the system on which these documents were created." Joy.

Make It Apply To Them (1)

PasteEater (590893) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837492)

I think the best way to get peoples attention on this subject is make it apply to them. For instance, you could try to explain how M$'s Palladium would make it difficult (if not impossible) for other platforms to survive. Without Apple, there would be no iPod, and so on. You brought up stifling innovation, but what we are really talking about is the death of technological innovation (or worse yet, putting it in a few peoples hands).

And why are we going through all of this? Because some record exec. thinks he won't be able to buy his third "summer" home in Malibu. Worse yet, if the Record Industry would have just shut their collective yap and let Napster survive, they probably would have made MORE money than they are now.

Although I'm not sure what the answer is to this problem, I am sure that we need a new way of doing things as far as copyright is concerned. We need sensibility, not knee-jerk responses that could endanger the future of all Americans.

Move the debate away from "copying" (3, Interesting)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837609)

As far as I can tell, MOST of the problems caused for consumers by DRM plans involve the **AA's focus on preventing "copying" (indeed, it's even called "COPYright")...despite the fact that the Fair Use doctrine seems to imply that COPYING is not the "cause" of a copyright violation - DISTRIBUTION is.

Theoretically, anything I have a legal right to access, I also have a legal "Fair Use" right to copy, translate, garble, "space shift" to other media, "time shift" to watch later [I assume rented media includes this right, up to the length of the rental agreement, after which I no longer have a right to KEEP a copy], and so on. Where the violation occurs is when I DISTRIBUTE these copies to people who don't have a right to them.

If the focus of DRM would move towards distribution rather than copying, I'd feel a lot less worried about what the **AA were buying from my government. (Not to say that I WANT some sort of monitor chip implanted in every ethernet card, but I would feel less constrained by that than the monitor chip getting in my way every time I try to make a copy for my own personal use...)

Online financial systems (1)

smiff (578693) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837620)

If people are to become accustomed to spending money on the internet, we need convenient online payment systems. We need electronic cash that can not be traced or otherwise used to invade our privacy. The technology exists, but it is encumbered with patents. Ironically, those patents are held by a Danish company, but they only apply in the United States.

We need a well established, open standard where people can just type in a password to authorize payment. Thus saving people the trouble of taking out their credit card and copying down a sixteen digit number. I envision a system were you click a button on a web page which accesses the financial transaction system in your web browser. When you click the link, your web browser pops up a window specifying the size of the transaction. You select a payment method, type in a password to authorize the transaction and the computer does the rest, transfering money, a reciept, and if applicable, the content.

That standard should permit open source implementations, so that the most popular web server in the world can use it, and so that free web browsers can use it.

The standard needs support from banks. The banks would be an excellent place to charge for modest patent royalties.

Keep in mind, the record companies do not want convenient online payment systems. With convenient online payment systems, people could buy music direct from the artists, skipping the record companies all together.

Congress should establish some grants to develop a convenient online payment standard.

Re:Online financial systems (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837685)

That idea would be seriously flawed. Convience usually means lax security. A password as a method of authorizing payment would be incredibly insecure. Most people cant pick out a good password - most people will use the same password for all their accounts. Most people will pick something stupid like their brithday as their password. These passwords would be broken in minutes and those people would have all their information available for anyone to take. Your idea would raise the number of fradulent transactions dramtically.

I also do not see what this has to do with DRM. What exactly is your point (with regard to this story)?

Re:Online financial systems (1)

smiff (578693) | more than 12 years ago | (#3838220)

Oh yeah! My point! I guess I left that part out. My point was that people would be more likely to pay for content if it was convenient and confidential. The sky is not falling. Congress should address this issue before messing with digital rights management.

Obviously, security would be a major concern. I would hope that all key datum (account numbers, receipts, etc) are encrypted with some large randomly generated key. The key itself would be encrypted with a password. The key should only be accessible to a priveledged user, banker.

When a customer clicks on a payment link, the web browser would call a setuid banker program, passing a dollar amount, transaction ID, and any other pertinant data. Running under the banker userid, a window would pop up asking the user to select a payment method and to enter their password.

Any time someone tries to start a transaction, a window would pop up asking the user to type in their password. Even if someone physically sat down and started typing passwords, the system could control how often someone can enter their password, dramatically slowing a dictionary attack. All transactions, encryption, and decryption would be managed under the banker ID. The user would never see their encryption key, not even the encrypted version of their key.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially how OpenSSH works? Except that OpenSSH lets the user access their encrypted key.

If someone wants to break this system, they will have to gain priveledged access to the user's machine, and then figure out the password. With a well designed system, such as SE Linux, rooting the box wouldn't even work.

Alternatively, someone could try breaking into the bank, or decrypting the user's data. But these things would be protected with keys much stronger than a password.

Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders (1)

InspectorPraline (584557) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837636)

One of the reasons that lawmakers often "don't speak geek" is that they "speak law" instead. Many of us in the computer world do not realize the inordinate amount of work that these people must go through to get a law degree. One might even say that the profession of law is even more bloated with jargon than our own profession is - a quick look at the infamous Jargon File [tuxedo.org] [warning, 2.2MB link] will prove that. (incidentally, if printed, it's about 785 pages of stuff!)

While I may give the legislators this chip to bargain with, it is taken away just as quickly by telling them that if they are to make laws that govern the fruits of our profession, (by "our profession" I mean programmers, primarily) they must understand it. It is this core point that legislators fail to accept. It is also this core point that lawyers often refuse to accept.

The only solution in this matter is to educate - and for that to happen, those of us who are so quick to judge people who do not intrinsically understand the ways computers work (and lawmakers often understand less about computers than the average bear) must put aside some of that cynicism and try to teach these people enough so that their laws not only are effective, but enforceable.

Note the difference - these people are not your 90 year old grandmas who only use their computers as a glorified typewriter!! Especially in reading some posts here, we are quick to rail away against our legislators because they do not seem to understand the ramifications of their actions. I am not discounting that the mafia-boss style tactics of the MPAA and RIAA, for example, have an effect on our legislators' votes, because they do, but maybe by giving our legislators enough good information about how computers work and how these things can actually be managed, the legislators might actually be able to out-think idiots like Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti.

Or am I being too optimistic?
--

DRM vs. Free Society (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836284)

I think that the issue of DRM falls into a much larger debate about society in general. If we can prevent people from breaking the law, should we do it ? This question will become very relevant in the near future, as techologies are inevitably developed which can remove peoples' ability to break the law (be it copyright law or something else).

I believe that it is fundamental aspect of a free society that people can break laws as they see fit and suffer the consequences. After all, this is one of the few remaining options for ordinary people to overturn "bad" laws. Wherever our ability to break the law is removed we will have transfered absolute, nearly unaccountable power to the people and organizations who write the laws. This is particularly disturbing when the people behind such schemes are not even elected, ie: Microsoft and Palladium.

Most slashdot readers probably understand the importance of this principle to democracy, but I wonder how many lawmakers do. We should bring this to their attention, because although we will likely win the war over DRM, there will be numerous other techologies of a similiar nature appearing on the horizon shortly.

Re:DRM vs. Free Society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3838114)

man must be free to choose if you take away this right he is no longer able to grow nor learn the valuable lessons from his mistakes. god is the source for right and wrong. when man seeks to control he will exclude god and assume the role as god.. hitler jusified himself, and those who didn`t conform to "his" god like image paid dearly. those who say "if you are doing nothing wrong, than you have nothing to fear" should be feared the most. when they say "you have nothing to fear" tell them yeah, just like those who died by the hand of the nazis.....

Read The Notice of Public Workshop FIRST! (4, Insightful)

PinkSchizoid (264768) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836292)

As stated, this is strictly a meeting for "relevant stakeholders" in the industry. It is relevant only as pertains to the economy of the United States. The notice does however devote one line to consumers stating (in part): "the proper role for the Government in facilitating solutions that are best for innovation and best for consumers.".
Strictly speaking, the primary goal of both is to substantially change some fundamental underpinnings of how data is transferred from point A to point B and perhaps back. The problem (as has been discussed to death here on /.) is just who is going to dictate what goes where and by what method, and how it will change what you and I call the net.
Many of us are a bit paranoid about it as well we should be. The term "Digital Revolution" may even conjure up a new meaning for a few of us if this keeps up. Please comment in person, in writing, or via email to anybody and everybody you can concerning this because OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SOLD US OUT! It's as simple as that. They even put it in writing. It's a done deal and anyone who thinks differently should really look at what's been happening.
Same old story. It's been gathering steam for quite a while and now it may be rolling too fast to stop.
Secure, Broadband, Economy? Hmmm, sort of sounds like something my t.v. cable company should be scheming with, not the Feds and certainly not in collusion with what they blatantly refer to as the major stakeholders. I don't want to say too much here as it may get misconstrued as a threat to national security (chuckle...), but this is utter bullshit. In theory, you can get your voice heard if you contact your Government representative. Beyond that this may require a MOVEMENT, a SIT-IN, a DEMONSTRATION, or something perhaps even more substantial.
IMHO, we will all see the internet become a place where even the most trivial activity will eventually be monitored, archived, and we will all be operating under an OS with the Federal seal of approval. This is not a good thing.
I specifically said we will all see this happen as it will not take too long in the making if nothing is done to put it in check.

I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!

not the first... (3, Informative)

kubla2000 (218039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836293)

This is not the first such workshop that has been held.

The previous was held on December 17, 2001: http://www.ta.doc.gov/PRel/MA011214.htm [doc.gov]

Participants included all the usual suspects including the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, and Intel

Interestingly, one of the participants was Forrester Research who, in their public archives which unfortunatly only has summaries available, include several reports such as:

http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Report/Summar y/0,1338,10020,FF.html [forrester.com]

whose summaries with punch line conclusions like "Media companies turn into eBusiness network" alone would have been enough to curl the nose hairs of any movie / recording industry executive still stuck in the 90s (1990s that is).

My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836298)

Enron isn't over yet.

Imagine 100 million people asking:

"Why doesn't my VCR/CD/Stereo work anymore?"

Any DRM laws passed will impact immense numbers of
people directly, and every one of them will want to
know exactly who voted for such a stupid idea.

Want results? Don't comment about music and film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836303)

The best way to fight something big is NOT to do it directly. For example, I'm commenting about how my business depends on the ability to make digital video of equipment installations and operating methodologies then use/convert/store/disseminate it in a variety of formats including recordable CDs and DVDs as well as streaming it on demand. Then I comment how hasty, flawed "protection" schemes will hurt American business and cost people their jobs if the "one size fits all" plans of the major media groups are adopted. As it is, we have huge problems shipping our own products into Canada because of how their Customs Agents sometimes treat recordable discs. "It's my music, I can do whatever I want with it" arguments will come across as the rantings of the unwashed masses. Instead, discuss how improper methods will make it difficult to do undeniably legitimate activities will cost American competitiveness and jobs. One of the things that makes America strong is the ability to move information and goods. Draconian DRM will stop American business dead in the water. People who lose their income because of ill-conceived DRM also vote ;)

Here's The Comment I Just Sent (4, Interesting)

mikeplokta (223052) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836330)

My criterion for an acceptable DRM system is simple. It must be incapable of removing any rights from the end user. Where any form of copying or other use is legally permissible without the consent of the copyright holder, such as redistributing extracts as part of a criticism or comment, making a copy for personal use on a different device, copying a broadcast for later viewing ("time-shifting"), viewing a work on a player in a different part of the world and so on, the copyright holder must be incapable of using the DRM system to prevent such copying.

If a technical solution to preserving "fair use" is not possible, a legal solution would be acceptable -- legislation would have to require that a copyright holder not use a DRM system in such a way as to prevent fair use, and I suggest that the appropriate penalty for failure to comply would be for them to lose the copyright on the work concerned and have it placed in the public domain for all to copy and resell freely.

You will note that several existing DRM technologies, such as DVD region coding and Macrovision, fail to meet this criterion. This is a serious issue which I suggest you should address at the workshop.

Re:Here's The Comment I Just Sent (5, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836372)

My criterion for an acceptable DRM system is simple. It must be incapable of removing any rights from the end user.

That goal cannot be achieved technically for the same reason that DRM cannot be achieved technically. Information is policy neutral, the only means of attaching a policy to information is through secure hardware which does not exist in mass producable form (as the advocates of the Clipper chip discovered).

I have not yet written a submission, if I do it will probably be on the following lines:

  1. DRM technology must be judged by its actual capabilities and not the claims made for it.
    At present DRM technologies are subject to a technical equivalent of Gresham's law, the bad schemes drive out the good. Nobody has a scheme that can provide for perfect security.
  2. The purpose of security technology is to control risk, not eliminate it
  3. Legislation should not be used to deprive consumers of use rights, in particular those that operate in restraint of trade
    The real purpose of the DVD zone scheme is to allow artificial price differentials between markets to be preserved. While this is repeatedly denied these denials are not credible.
  4. The primary impact of any DRM enforcement mechanism is psychological.

Here's What I Sent (exact transcript) (2)

guttentag (313541) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837351)

Before reading my comments, you are required to read and accept the following End Reader Licensing Agreement.
  1. The following content is owned by the Me Corporation (hereafter referred to as "Me").
  2. The content may not be redistributed without the handwritten consent of an officer of Me.
  3. By reading the content, the reader agrees to allow Me to remove any incompatible software on the reader's computer.
  4. The reader further agrees to allow Me to install any software Me deems necessary to ensure this ERLA is adhered to.
  5. The reader is hereby licensed to read the content a maximum of two times. A fee of $5 U.S. will be charged to each credit card number found on the reader's computer for each reading in excess of two.
  6. The reader agrees to hold harmless Me and its officers for any damages or unintended effects that result from Me's Digital Rights Management.
[reject] [ACCEPT]

<ENCRYPTED CONTENT>
I respectfully submit that Digital Rights Management will enable corporations to exert inappropriate control over the consumer's rights and property, and that it will be abused in ways we can only imagine in the persuit of every last penny of profit.
</ENCRYPTED CONTENT>

Why give our computers to RIAA/MPAA for free? (1)

Pingo (41908) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836358)

RIAA/MPAA are complaining about piracy but are
themselves in the process of a big time theft
of all personal computers in the world.

A crooked world isn't it? //Pingo

Reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3836393)

Goodbye record companies!

I guess Real musicians with Real talent playing Real music (ok Live if it pleases you techno heads!) to Real audiences in Real theatres will be the only people earning Real money.

Just like the Good old days.

I guess I'm just stupid (2)

elmegil (12001) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836632)

Where exactly is the form I need to respond to? I don't see anything on the second page linked that says "form here" and none of the random links I've clicked get me there. It's all well and good to be clever and say "see, they hid it", but let us know where it is so we can respond!

Nice timing... (2)

rnturn (11092) | more than 12 years ago | (#3836749)

Announce a workshop on the day before (what is for the people who would be most affected by the outcome of the workshop) a four day weekend to virtually guarantee that few, if any, people are going to hear about it or have the time to compose any meaningful input.

Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't publicly announce the workshop until July 12th.

This smacks of the ``let's sneak it through when they're not looking'' tactic that the mayor of Chicago and his political cronies pulled in Illinois when they pushed through a bill to authorize a major airport expansion on Christmas Eve because they knew that few people would catch on.

And for us Canadians? (1)

Sandman1971 (516283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837042)

I'm curious about something, and hopefully someone will be able to answer. Most of the hardware is made outside the US for US companies. WIll this mean that different hardware will be produced for countries != US? (IE: Canada), where the copyright laws are different?

I'm sure implementing US laws on hardware shipped outside the US probably breaks a few trade agreements (not to mention it enforces US laws [legal or copyright] on other countries). How will this affect us (us being users outside the US)?

Re:And for us Canadians? (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3838069)

I'm sure implementing US laws on hardware shipped outside the US probably breaks a few trade agreements (not to mention it enforces US laws [legal or copyright] on other countries). How will this affect us (us being users outside the US)?

At a guess the US will claim that the trade agreements in question oblige the rest of the world to go along with this. If they manage to fool the rest of the world then this will get pushed everywhere in the name of "globalization" & "harmonization".
The US would likely try very hard for this interpretation. Since as most of hardware in question simply cannot be sourced from within the US, including systems utterly vital to government.

Congressional hearings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3837225)


What really needs to be done is to prepare a congressional hearing on these issues.

Stacked Deck (1)

John Leeming (160817) | more than 12 years ago | (#3837329)


Check out the CV on Chris Israel [doc.gov] , the person who is supposed to be collecting comments for his office to work on.

Seems like Jack Valenti has his hands up all the major puppets these days...


I did my Slashdot duty and wrote! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3837432)

I have included the text of the message I sent to the e-mail address. Please don't cut/paste/copy the message verbatim if you plan to write your own response though do take / critique your own ideas!

Dear Sir,

As a consumer of digital entertainment that has felt my rights infringed and stolen by big media and software companies in the name of corporate profits, I argue that Digital Rights Management (DRM) software and protocols should not have a place in the future of American society.

Copyright provides a monetary incentive (in the form of a limited monopoly on distribution and performance) for an artist or author to produce creative works. However, copyright also explicitly allows for "fair use", such as for time and space shifting, backup, critique, parody, and educational use. A technological solution via DRM takes away this balance, as the DRM software removes the ability to exercise fair use rights. A right that exists in the law but cannot be exercised by technological means is substansively not a right at all.

The very nature of "fair use" requires that (1) prior consent and approval by the copyright holder is not required, and (2) no artificial barriers be placed upon the user to exercise those rights that are not defined by the law. We live in a world where some lawyers of entertainment companies believe, 'there is no right to fair use, it is only a defense against infringement.' Given such attitudes, it is reasonable to assume that approval shall never be granted by the rights holder even for the important fair uses I have listed above. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a rights holder shall grant permission to use the work if the purpose of the fair use is to criticize the work. If prior consent is required before a fair use, the right to fair use is substansively removed. With respect to the second case ('no artificial barriers...'), I am referring to attempts by some DRM protocols to "give some limited fair use" options to the user by allowing 5 (or some small number) copies to be made. No where in the copyright law does it name the number of fair uses that is legally permissible (why are 5 fair uses legal but 6 are not?) In this respect, DRM software is an attempt to substansively rewrite the effective rights granted to users by copyright law without changing the text of the law. DRM software infringes upon the rights of the user.

I want to emphasize that I am not arguing for the abolishment of copyright, as it is clear that copyright serves a useful purpose in promoting the arts and the sciences. My point is that DRM software allows right holders to unilateraly impose conditions on using the works that a user has legally bought the rights to use, which is a power far greater than what copyright law allows. If DRM was capable of perserving my fair use rights, I will be more supportive of their inclusion: I feel rights holders should be able to protect their work as long as it does not infringe on my rights or cause undue inconvenience. But it is clear that DRM software will certainly infringe on the rights of users.

To illustrate the problem of DRM with an analogy, one way we can stop all the murders in the United States is to place everyone in individual prison cells. Effectively, the rights of many law abiding citizens are removed to stop the few but sigificant number of criminals in society. This is unacceptable. Even though the explicit right to "pursue a life of freedom, safety, and happiness" is not granted or stated anywhere in the law, this right is expected by proud American citizens. DRM would place users into prison cells with the media companies as the wardens-- even though the user has already paid for the rights to use the copyrighted work. The fair use rights of many law abiding citizens are removed to stop the copyright infringement of a few but significant number of users. This is unacceptable, as the right to fair use is expected by American citizens, even if we were to take the self-serving views of some intellectual property lawyers and assume that "fair use" is only a defense and not an explicitly granted right.

In conclusion, it is my hope that this workshop shall place the rights of American citizens above the profits of corporations. The discussion should be about the harm DRM software causes to users and whether DRM software should be allowed in future society at all, and not about how much DRM should be 'legally permissible' and tolerated by the users and government regulators.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?