RIAA attacking DALnet?
xXOiGodXx
DALnet denial of service attacks? Before anyone is quick to flame me
for taking credit away from the little 13 year old script kiddies who
all of you are so sure are responsible for causing this mess.
Do a quick search on google for "RIAA DoS Bill", and you will
find articles on how the RIAA wants legal clearance as far as DoSing
P2P networks. Since DALnet is one of the top warez/mp3 irc networks I
would'nt doubt DALnet would be the first IRC Network targeted in a
RIAA's massive P2P DoS wave.
What's your opinion?
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
"xXOiGodXx" <nospamg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e18c593...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
Dalnet is not a p2p network, because dalnet only provides the medium for
people to give out sites.
They would be smart to attack sharing programs like kazaa and limewire
first.
And right now, its not legal for the RIAA to DOS, if they were to do so, I
would think it would seriously hurt thier position to do attacks before they
are legal. I don't see any such bill getting passed if there are preemptive
strikes. And the way the bills are written, the RIAA would have to have
proof that such things were occuring before they could attack, and would
have to show such proof to "justify" it, once the law is enacted.
Any attacks now by them will cause the law to not be passed and for them to
be screwed even more.
--
UnitSixFortyNine
ForeverChat IRC Network Founder
Services including Chanserv, Nickserv, Hostserv, Botserv and MemoServ.
Free Services for channels with 10+ users including bot and webhosting.
/server irc.foreverchat.net -- http://www.foreverchat.net
Network Founded Nov 7 2001 -- Servers in the US, EU, CA
Delta5
another IRC or p2p server? I wonder how "legal" that attack would be on an
overseas server. And dont forget about retaliation too. I am sure there will
be plenty of that. I doubt very seriously that they will get clearance to
attack like that. It would be WW3...
--
delta5
Founder
USAchat Network
irc.usachat.net
www.usachat.net
www.irc-forum.stormhosts.com
Jan Knutar
> And right now, its not legal for the RIAA to DOS, if they were to do so, I
> would think it would seriously hurt thier position to do attacks before
> they
Wouldn't that bill if it passed, only give them jurisdiction to do so in
the US?
Farzan
First of all, I gotta tell ya, there're a lot of "13 year olds" out there,
that have way more potential than people like _you_ give them credit for.
But what would you know, you need a clue. (Judging by your RIAA theory)
The google search you mentioned returns results about the RIAA website being attacked.
One of them being: "RIAA wants right to DOS peer-to-peer network, gets DOS'd itself."
I'm not denying that the RIAA has the motive to attack dalnet; They probably have the resources
and the people to do it, too. But I doubt their ability to actually pull it off.
You can't expect much from an organization that's been chasing p2p networks, unsuccessfully.
And I'm not sure what reason you had for including "Bill" in that search.
Maybe Bill Gate$ is attacking DALnet. :)
RIAA's massive P2P DoS wave? You need "proof", not "words", but "proof".
FZ
RB
trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his primary ip.
"Farzan" <ro...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
news:S3cS9.104$aF...@read3.inet.fi...
Joel
>If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse Express.
>Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh?
--
Joel Crump
Farzan
"Blue Agent" <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message news:3e195a13$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse Express.
> Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
I've only got 2 things to tell you.
1. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=51WDTUE7F5&isbn=1567615929&itm=7
2. I'm using OE and I can see your post.
HAND,
FZ
Andy Smith
> Does anyone else think the RIAA could be behind the recent
> DALnet denial of service attacks?
Only those with tin-foil hats.
> Do a quick search on google for "RIAA DoS Bill", and you will
> find articles on how the RIAA wants legal clearance as far as DoSing
> P2P networks.
If you want to actually have a clue about the bill you'd be better reading
something like:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/20020802_eff_berman_p2p_bill.html
Otherwise you will just end up repeating grossly inaccurate speculations by
other people (such as "RIAA is DDoSing DALNET!").
> Since DALnet is one of the top warez/mp3 irc networks I
> would'nt doubt DALnet would be the first IRC Network targeted in a
> RIAA's massive P2P DoS wave.
>
> What's your opinion?
That you should spend more time reading and less writing.
--
The Blitzed IRC Network
http://blitzed.org
Andy Smith
> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just an ass
> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his primary
> ip.
In that case you are as much of a fuckwit (if not more) as he is.
Sphere
some heavy fines from multiple ISP's who would tear them apart in court...
now that I mention it, I hope it is the RIAA DoS'ing dalnet. That way we can
get rid of them for good.
----
Sphere
"xXOiGodXx" <nospamg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e18c593...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
Sphere
----
Sphere
"Blue Agent" <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message
news:3e19598c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Tom Bampton
"Sphere" <jcg-we...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:X8fS9.583802$P31.208898@rwcrnsc53...
> I am using Outhouse Express, and it seems to be working fine thankyou.
Not if that's all you saw, it isnt. Press Ctrl+F3 and you'll see the msg.
Why people feel they have to do the lame begin/end thing I have no clue.
Oh, and please dont top post. Thanks.
ShadowDragon
I think you need to get one of these http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html before
they get you too. Hurry!
Tony Miller
Blue Agent <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote:
> end
> If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse
> Express.
> Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
If whoever it is can't see your posts, it's probably to their benefit
because you have nothing important or intelligent to say.
-Tony
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
|{evin
>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:51:32 -0500, RB <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just
an ass
>> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his
primary ip.
>
resolves
>to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?
(Using Outlook, btw)
This is certainly true, if the attacker is using a compromised host...
then yes, most people would wind up tracking down the compromised
host. Taking out this host won't take out the attacker, but it WILL
cut off that limb of the attacker. It also may make the moron running
the compromised host wake up and install some patches and updates.
--
Kevin
My kids seem to always be around, remove them to reply
directly to me.
rudedogs
If I will not pay for it anyway, but i do download it they have lost nothin.
since i would't pay for it anyway. All i have doen is bypas the radio lol
only one i feel i am hurting is the radio stations since i now no longer
listen to it lol
besides check the statistics. music sales rose last year not drop. so do the
math. more people download the mp3's and sales rise... um were is the loss
theer talking about?
"ShadowDragon" <dont...@causethisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:CvhS9.16574$Mb.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Rick
> I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
How is stealing a car stealing money from anyone?
blue...@subdimension.c0m
>
> "Blue Agent" <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message news:3e195a13$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>
>> If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse Express.
>> Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
>
> I've only got 2 things to tell you.
> 1. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=51WDTUE7F5&isbn=1567615929&itm=7
No need for that.
> 2. I'm using OE and I can see your post.
No you can't, only the little informative piece I left for you at the bottom.
If you don't like it, don't read it. It doesn't get any easier.
blue...@subdimension.c0m
Loose change in the ash tray.
Joel
I don't like OE. You're absolutely right that it's poorly designed
and treats Usenet a lot like how MS Chat treats IRC. But, I like
psychogeeks even less. "Don't read it" will work quite well for me.
--
Joel Crump
Blue Agent
"|{evin" <Matthew...@Melissa.insightbb.Malayna.com> wrote:
> Blue Agent wrote:
> >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:51:32 -0500, RB <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just
> an ass
> >> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his
> primary ip.
> >
> >Why, you 31337 h4><0r j00. You do realise that where his IP address
> resolves
> >to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?
>
> (Using Outlook, btw)
>
> This is certainly true, if the attacker is using a compromised host...
> then yes, most people would wind up tracking down the compromised
> host. Taking out this host won't take out the attacker, but it WILL
> cut off that limb of the attacker.
Yes, but it's unlikely to have a huge impact on an attack of this scale.
> It also may make the moron running
> the compromised host wake up and install some patches and updates.
Hopefully, but quite a few of the idiots out there are really beyond help.
Farzan
<blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message news:3e1a3...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Path:
read3.inet.fi!central.inet.fi!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!uio.no!newsfeed.news2me.com!border1.nntp.au
s1.giganews.com!feed01.bs1!nntp.giganews.com!news.voicenet.com!newsin.iconnet.net!feed.tor.primus.ca!news.primus.ca!53ab2750!not-for
-mail
Newsgroups: alt.irc.dalnet,alt.irc,alt.irc.mirc
From: Blue Agent <blue...@subdimension.c0m>
Subject: Re: RIAA attacking DALnet?
References: <3e18c593...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net> <S3cS9.104$aF...@read3.inet.fi> <TcSdnX26Hp0...@comcast.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.134.92.85
Message-ID: <3e195a13$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>
Organization: iPrimus Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to ab...@iprimus.com.au
Lines: 14
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Date: 6 Jan 2003 21:27:31 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.134.67.67
X-Complaints-To: ne...@primus.ca
X-Trace: news.primus.ca 1041848760 203.134.67.67 (Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:26:00 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:26:00 EST
Xref: central.inet.fi alt.irc.dalnet:20760 alt.irc:121848 alt.irc.mirc:30253
begin post.txt
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:51:32 -0500, RB <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just an ass
> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his primary ip.
Why, you 31337 h4><0r j00. You do realise that where his IP address resolves
to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?
--
end
If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse Express.
Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
-----
If your message contained anything other than what's above, then no, I didn't see it.
Farzan
"Farzan" <ro...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message news:sQrS9.2$VP...@read3.inet.fi...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse Express.
> Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
> -----
>
> If your message contained anything other than what's above, then no, I didn't see it.
>
>
bah heh
"Why, you 31337 h4><0r j00. You do realise that where his IP address resolves
to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?"
And that of course, not sure why it didn't get pasted...
Tom Bampton
>
> <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message
news:3e1a3...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > In article <NVdS9.180$aF...@read3.inet.fi>, "Farzan" <ro...@192.168.0.1>
wrote:
> > >
> > > "Blue Agent" <blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message
news:3e195a13$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > >>
> > >> If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using
Outhouse Express.
> > >> Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
> > >
> > > I've only got 2 things to tell you.
> > > 1.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=51WDTUE7F
5&isbn=1567615929&itm=7
> >
> > No need for that.
> >
> > > 2. I'm using OE and I can see your post.
> >
> > No you can't, only the little informative piece I left for you at the
bottom.
<snip>
> If your message contained anything other than what's above, then no, I
didn't see it.
I'm using OE and I *can* see the whole message. Try pressing Ctrl+F3.
Here it is (begin/end changed so OE doesnt mess it up again):
Path:
news.demon.co.uk!mutlu.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.new
s2me.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!feed01.bs1!nntp.giganews.com!news.vo
icenet.com!newsin.iconnet.net!feed.tor.primus.ca!news.primus.ca!53ab2750!not
-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.irc.dalnet,alt.irc,alt.irc.mirc
From: Blue Agent <blue...@subdimension.c0m>
Subject: Re: RIAA attacking DALnet?
References: <3e18c593...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>
<S3cS9.104$aF...@read3.inet.fi> <TcSdnX26Hp0...@comcast.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.134.92.85
Message-ID: <3e195a13$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>
Organization: iPrimus Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to
ab...@iprimus.com.au
Lines: 14
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Date: 6 Jan 2003 21:27:31 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.134.67.67
X-Complaints-To: ne...@primus.ca
X-Trace: news.primus.ca 1041848760 203.134.67.67 (Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:26:00
EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 05:26:00 EST
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.irc.dalnet:1984 alt.irc:2703 alt.irc.mirc:2047
beign post.txt
Sphere
to complain about OE, go to a different news group. No one here cares about
your on going quest to rid the world of MS. Now fuck off and go away.
----
Sphere
<blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message
news:3e1a3...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Thund3rstruck
<blue...@subdimension.c0m> wrote in message
news:3e1a3...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> No you can't, only the little informative piece I left for you at the
bottom.
Not to get into this, but if you check my headers, you will see I am
using OE right now. Here is the text of your message, minus headers of
course. *g*
<Begin quote>
>begin post.txt
>
>>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:51:32 -0500, RB <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just an ass
>> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his primary
ip.
>
>Why, you 31337 h4><0r j00. You do realise that where his IP address
resolves
>to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?
>--
>end
>If you can't see this post, it's probably because you're using Outhouse
Express.
>Please upgrade to a standards compliant, well written newsreader.
<End quote>
As I always say, there is always a way. *g*
> If you don't like it, don't read it. It doesn't get any easier.
Well, this "conversation" is making me laugh, so I will continue
reading...
NOI
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
Someone wanted to show he was l33t by inserting a file, thats why. Sure its
off topic, thats all that ever happens here. They didn't have an
intelligent comment about the topic, so they changed it. Happens all the
time in real life too.
--
UnitSixFortyNine
ForeverChat IRC Network Founder
Services including Chanserv, Nickserv, Hostserv, Botserv and MemoServ.
Free Services for channels with 10+ users including bot and webhosting.
/server irc.foreverchat.net -- http://www.foreverchat.net
Network Founded Nov 7 2001 -- Servers in the US, EU, CA
Jacob News
>> I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>How is stealing a car stealing money from anyone?
Sorry, thanks for playing. An mp3 is not a car. Learn the basics of
intangible goods theory and try again.
[disclaimer]
And don't be one of those vacuous ninnies who assumes that I'm saying that
it's acceptable to download mp3's. Only morons with the intellectual capacity
of scallops would derive such a preposterous and lunatic conclusion from my
above statement. Please remember that my desire to encourage you to use
bona fide legitimite logic and to avoid irrelevant and useless analogies does
not mean I'm some sort of free-thinking communist who is bent on world
destruction, like some have presumed in their ignorance.
There are better ways to explain why downloading mp3's causes economic harm
than the always irrelevant analogy to tangible goods. This bad analogy only
makes the user of the analogy look like a moron. Don't do that to yourself.
-Jacob
--
jn...@epicsol.org Violations of McQ flagrantly "sponsored" by...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
rudedogs
Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
Since music sales rose last year, there is no proof any money was lost. Some
will say well you not pay use for that mp3's so we lost money, thats bull.
If there wasn't any mp3's then i wouldn't have it. Not that you would have
my money.
so you gain nothin at all stopping me downloading it. infact You loose
money since you have to spend so much trying to stop it lol.
Give it up and get into the modern age.
When cassett tapes were release the same argument happend then. The music
industry tried to stop the selling of Cassett tape recorders and VCR
recorders. BUt they can not and now there as comman as dirt.. and guess what
Mucis and movie sales or on an all time record sales lol
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1b0...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
"rudedogs" <rude...@DIRECTVInternet.com> wrote in message
news:3e1b1ece$1...@nopics.sjc...
There are ways to stop it, but all of them require a major expenditure of
money. The reason the RIAA crys is because they want the people (ie the end
users) to pay for the technology they want to protect themselves, so they
don't have to cut into their precious profit margin.
If they really wanted it to stop, they would have laid out the money right
after it started to create a CD or a format that prevents what is happening
now from occuring. You notice they haven't, they want laws instead to
prevent the common folk from doing it, and for them to spend a little money
to sue joe shmoe mp3 downloader for doing it, and by succeeding, they will
just increase the profit margin even more. Why secure your own stuff when
you can just make money off lawsuits of people taking advantage of it?
Farzan
"rudedogs" <rude...@DIRECTVInternet.com> wrote in message news:3e19e...@nopics.sjc...
> I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
> If I will not pay for it anyway, but i do download it they have lost nothin.
> since i would't pay for it anyway. All i have doen is bypas the radio lol
>
> only one i feel i am hurting is the radio stations since i now no longer
> listen to it lol
>
> besides check the statistics. music sales rose last year not drop. so do the
> math. more people download the mp3's and sales rise... um were is the loss
> theer talking about?
>
It isn't "stealing" in the sense you're thinking of.
When you download an mp3 which you should have paid $3 for, you're depriving the artist & company that made the mp3 of their
rightful profit.
Imagine if 'everyone' was to download mp3s instead of buying the tracks/albums. The companies that sponsor artists would be out of
business within months.
Now, for our friend who thinks it's the same thing as stealing someone's car;
You (The average person) save up money for a while and pay it for a car which you use to get you around in your life.
"Moron" steals your car; You've just lost price of old car + price to buy a new car.
This situation is more like someone stealing _your_ "<Favourite band> - <some album>" CD.
The company got it's money, it's no loss for them (They continue making albums/cars), but you just lost $40. ($80 if you plan to buy
the CD again)
Hopefully, my story makes a little sense.
FZ
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
Your analogy is correct except for the fact that music sales rose again last
year.
Why the increase? The only thing that would fit your analogy is that
perhaps they should have gone up even more, but they definetely haven't gone
down....
Jacob News
>What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow up.
>Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
>computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
No, what you that download mp3s need to do is stop consuming the filth
that malevolant corporations spew out in manners which give credence to
said corporation's claims that the elimination of consumer rights is the
only way to restore balance to the marketplace. Every unauthorized
download mp3 just strengthens the position of the RIAA and weakens the
position of consumer advocates who wish to retain what precious little
liberties still remain for the end-user.
This is a problem for everybody who cares about the production of new
music. Don't be a coward and insist it's not your problem. It *is*
your problem. Are you interested in helping those who are battling the
RIAA for the future of your rights, or are you just going to sit in
your bedroom, selfishly oblivious to how your self-destructive behavior
will lead to more and more deleterious affects against you, just as long
as in the meantime you can listen to the new 311 single?
This is about a lot more than just money.
Stephen Dedalus
me jacob, how will the rights of the end-user be SUCCESSFULLY infringed
upon? If you identify every person who downloads mp3's, and warez, and
movies... how do you think they will be prosecuted? If you tried to pursue a
fraction of those people in criminal or civil proceedings the cost would be
staggering (and prohibitive if not bankrupting) and the sheer volume of
cases would collapse the US lower court system. If you think that hardware
based infringment will be successful, think about how many of your programs
come with dongles... not too damned many. And why is that? THEY FAILED. If
it's hardwired in or coded into the software the sheer number of people
motivated by desire for the product and the sheer challenge (see sony's old
challenge) is more than enough to break it. The number of people that
record, software, and movie companies can hire is the same from one day to
another, but the number of people who pirate (oh sorry, trade) mp3's
software and movies grows RAPIDLY. The number of people with broadband
access, and access to computers around the world is growing by leaps and
bounds, and the technology such as it is, is still young (compared to
television, manned flight.... etc)... Ease up on the sanctimonious crap, the
paranoid babble, and above all... THE IGNORANCE! You've proven several times
now that you talk a lot, and clearly think you're hot shit, but know next to
nothing about the subjects you babble on about. Do us all a favour and shut
up.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1b2ec6$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Jacob News
>They'll sit and download of course, and your hysterics won't stop them.
>Tell me jacob, how will the rights of the end-user be SUCCESSFULLY
>infringed upon?
Through the technology of control and legislation to force it. The way
it's going, the consumer rights people are not going to be able to
hold the Fritz bill at bay forever. It's inevitable unless people start
restraining themselves from downloading mp3's and movies and so on.
[snip]
>but [you] know next to nothing about the subjects you babble on about.
>Do us all a favour and shut up.
When the day comes that what you're doing actually becomes a crime, and the
federal government declares the "War on Pirates", and piracy stops being
glamorous, maybe you will be able to deal with the social consequences
of the guilt and shame of being morally equated to a drug dealer, and offer
all sorts of excuses and rationalizations about why your crimes should be
overlooked and excused, but I'd rather fight them and not let them make you
a criminal in the first place. And *your* reaction to this is to spit in
my face. Gee, thanks.
The difference between you and me is that you have apparantly resigned
yourself to living those days of your life as an unconvicted felon. I've
determined to fight them from criminalizing the behavior in the first place.
Just becuase you're too cowardly to face the problems coming at you doesn't
mean the rest of us should be.
codemastr
> DALnet denial of service attacks? Before anyone is quick to flame me
> for taking credit away from the little 13 year old script kiddies who
> all of you are so sure are responsible for causing this mess.
>
> Do a quick search on google for "RIAA DoS Bill", and you will
> find articles on how the RIAA wants legal clearance as far as DoSing
> P2P networks. Since DALnet is one of the top warez/mp3 irc networks I
> would'nt doubt DALnet would be the first IRC Network targeted in a
> RIAA's massive P2P DoS wave.
>
> What's your opinion?
I take it you have never studied any politics in your life? First off having
contacted several congressmen on this issue, the bill is pretty much dead.
It has been put in committee where it is expected to die a long and painful
death. Thats the first point, secondly, the way to get a bill passed is NOT
by breaking the law. If the RIAA said "we want you to pass this bill and
even if you don't we're gonna start DoSing people" the response would be
"then we'll start arresting you". Yes I am really sure a multibillion dollar
industry just one day decided that they wanted to go out of business so they
would do everything they could to make sure every government in the world
would fine them as much as possible and as many people in the world could
sue them for obscene amounts.
Then I also assume you did not read the bill did you? Because no where does
it say they can just go DoSing like crazy, in fact it says they can't. The
bill proposes that they be ONLY allowed to delete files and to 'clutter' p2p
networks. NOT that they can just decide "Hmm AOL hosts a website that has
mp3s on it... well guess we'll go DoS AOL since there is nothing they can do
about it because this law says we can" I mean come on, think logically here,
how could any government possibly give total control like that? Say I work
at the Pentagon, and I have an mp3 on my machine, by your logic the RIAA is
legally allowed to DoS all the Pentagon computers? Yea ok I'm sure that
Congress would definately vote for a law like that!
-- codemastr
Rick
> rudedogs wrote:
>
>>>I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
>
>
> Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>How is stealing a car stealing money from anyone?
>
>
> Sorry, thanks for playing. An mp3 is not a car. Learn the basics of
> intangible goods theory and try again.
>
it's theft.
Rick
> What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow up.
> Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
> computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
Riiight! At the moment, we pay a tax on every single blank cassette
tape we buy, that tax put in place by our government because of theft of
music, etc. Currently they are looking at applying the same sort of tax
to recordable CDs and to hard drives - at a rate of 10$ a Gb in the case
of a hard drive. That would put the price of a 40 Gb drive over $500 -
a price I don't particularly want to pay because _you_ want to steal.
Rick
> rudedogs <rude...@DIRECTVInternet.com> wrote:
>
>>What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow up.
>>Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
>>computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
>
>
> No, what you that download mp3s need to do is stop consuming the filth
> that malevolant corporations spew out in manners which give credence to
> said corporation's claims that the elimination of consumer rights is the
> only way to restore balance to the marketplace.
So now "consumer's rights" includes the right to steal?
Jacob News
>>>What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow up.
>>>Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
>>>computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
>> No, what you that download mp3s need to do is stop consuming the filth
>> that malevolant corporations spew out in manners which give credence to
>> said corporation's claims that the elimination of consumer rights is the
>> only way to restore balance to the marketplace.
Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So now "consumer's rights" includes the right to steal?
This conversation would go along a lot better if you would get your head out
of your ass and pay attention to what people are saying instead of injecting
your idiocy where it doesn't belong. I said absolutely nothing close to
what you imply I said and I call you on your attempt to willfully
misrepresent my words in order to imply an ad-hominem attack discounting
what I *did* say. Your actions (bad analogies, misrepresentation,
invalid logic) do not paint your defense of your point of view in a very
good light.
So are you interested in debating the issue or just calling people names?
Jacob News
>> Sorry, thanks for playing. An mp3 is not a car. Learn the basics of
>> intangible goods theory and try again.
>Learn the basics of "my effort - my reward" and you'll understand why
>it's theft.
"My effort - My reward" is not an economic issue but a social policy
issue. It's not possible to "steal" what doesn't exist. You get extra
points for trying to change the discussion in mid-stride. Thanks for
playing. Try again.
Richard Revis
> First off having
> contacted several congressmen on this issue, the bill is pretty much dead.
> It has been put in committee where it is expected to die a long and
> painful death.
If only the DMCA had gone the same way.
--
You might not be the best looking girl here, but beauty is only a light
switch away.
1:23pm up 4 days, 4:06, 0 users, load average: 0.08, 0.08, 0.08
RX bytes:1133072942 (1080.5 Mb) TX bytes:3624710286 (3456.7 Mb)
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.
Tom Bampton
> >Jacob News wrote:
> >> Sorry, thanks for playing. An mp3 is not a car. Learn the basics of
> >> intangible goods theory and try again.
>
> Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Learn the basics of "my effort - my reward" and you'll understand why
> >it's theft.
>
> "My effort - My reward" is not an economic issue but a social policy
> issue. It's not possible to "steal" what doesn't exist. You get extra
> points for trying to change the discussion in mid-stride. Thanks for
> playing. Try again.
(Jacob, replying to your post for convenience, I'm not disputing what you
say)
Let us put it like this ...
Piracy (any kind, be it music or software) is theft according to the law
(IIRC, IANAL). Piracy also takes away from the artist, programmer, etc their
just rewards for the effort they put into producing the work. However you
shape it, unless you are a complete and utter asshole, piracy is wrong
morally and legally. There really is no argument about this.
Jacob News
>Piracy (any kind, be it music or software) is theft according to the law
>(IIRC, IANAL). Piracy also takes away from the artist, programmer, etc their
>just rewards for the effort they put into producing the work. However you
>shape it, unless you are a complete and utter asshole, piracy is wrong
>morally and legally. There really is no argument about this.
(Not disputing that you do not dispute what I'm saying, just clarifying
what I said in light of what you said)
There is of course no dispute that society benefits when the artist has a
certain level of expectation of remuneration for the act of not hoarding
his art and instead exposing it to the public. The amount, level, and
duration of this remuneration is eminently a social policy issue and is
subject to all the normal market forces for any good or service. [1]
But as a social policy concern (even moral rights are social policy
concerns and not an economic force) creates the POTENTIAL to convert
an intangible idea into capital (through the creation of copies and license
or selling of those copies). Any claims of direct economic harm calculated
on the inability to collect money that does not actually exist is specious
at best and deceitful at worst.
Simply put, you can't lose what never existed.
-Jacob
[1] Who are the enemy of both producer and customer? The bootleggers and
counterfeiters who defraud the public by selling goods that have the
appearance of legitimacy. These are the people who are ripping off
the artists by taking real money from real customers and keeping it for
themselves. You have probably seen these scoundrels in your local mall,
selling "mix" themed cd's from a kiosk. Do everyone a favor and report
these crooks to the RIAA.
Stephen Dedalus
"> No, what you that download mp3s need to do is stop consuming the filth
> that malevolant corporations spew out in manners which give credence to
> said corporation's claims that the elimination of consumer rights is the
> only way to restore balance to the marketplace. "
First of all, this sentence is terrible. Didn't anyone ever tell you that no
one is keeping score by the LENGTH of your sentence? Does the phrase "short
and sweet" mean ANYTHING to you? Malevolant is a terrible choice of words,
and "manners" is either a terrible choice of words, or a mistake (could you
possible have meant maTTers?) "Give credence to said corporation's
claims..." How about "support their claims"... Of course, you'd have to lose
the dangling modifier...
My point here, is that you need to brush up on the basics of grammar... it
will save you from writing these convoluted sentences, (and save us from
reading them) which clearly are meant to excite the feeble minded rather
than communicate a point. Ahhh yes, a point... get one... you would be
relying less on your inadequate skills at forming a sentence if you had a
point to be expressed. Your argument, such as it is, keeps becoming less
about the afformentioned idea of having a POINT, and more about literary
hopscotch. Believe me Jacob, no one is impressed, or fooled.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
Tom Bampton
> Tom Bampton <mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Piracy (any kind, be it music or software) is theft according to the law
> >(IIRC, IANAL). Piracy also takes away from the artist, programmer, etc
their
> >just rewards for the effort they put into producing the work. However you
> >shape it, unless you are a complete and utter asshole, piracy is wrong
> >morally and legally. There really is no argument about this.
>
> (Not disputing that you do not dispute what I'm saying, just clarifying
> what I said in light of what you said)
Heh, I *almost* carried that on, but thought better of it ;)
> There is of course no dispute that society benefits when the artist has a
> certain level of expectation of remuneration for the act of not hoarding
> his art and instead exposing it to the public. The amount, level, and
> duration of this remuneration is eminently a social policy issue and is
> subject to all the normal market forces for any good or service. [1]
I guess there's two angles at it. The cost the public will put up with (e.g.
there's no way anybody would pay $100 US for one track in todays economy) is
obviously a social thing. The other side of the coin is what the artist
wants to charge for his/her work, which is a commercial thing. All nicely
intertwined to make my poor inebriated brain explode :)
> But as a social policy concern (even moral rights are social policy
> concerns and not an economic force) creates the POTENTIAL to convert
> an intangible idea into capital (through the creation of copies and
license
> or selling of those copies). Any claims of direct economic harm
calculated
> on the inability to collect money that does not actually exist is specious
> at best and deceitful at worst.
That is of course very true. I think the flip side of the argument (for
completeness sake) is that, in terms of mp3s, if the person that downloaded
them couldnt download them he/she would of bought it instead. This leads to
inflated bullshit figures about "losses".
> Simply put, you can't lose what never existed.
>
> -Jacob
>
> [1] Who are the enemy of both producer and customer? The bootleggers and
> counterfeiters who defraud the public by selling goods that have the
> appearance of legitimacy. These are the people who are ripping off
> the artists by taking real money from real customers and keeping it for
> themselves. You have probably seen these scoundrels in your local mall,
> selling "mix" themed cd's from a kiosk. Do everyone a favor and report
> these crooks to the RIAA.
Bootlegging is a different issue altogether I think. In addition to what you
say, its worth noting that the quality is usually very poor. It rips off the
customer as well as the artist. Here (the UK) bootleggers tend to be around
markets and car boot sales. I dont remember seeing any at the piss poor
excuse for a mall round here, anyway :)
T.
Rick
> rudedogs <rude...@DIRECTVInternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow up.
>>>>Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
>>>>computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
>
>
> Jacob News wrote:
>
>>>No, what you that download mp3s need to do is stop consuming the filth
>>>that malevolant corporations spew out in manners which give credence to
>>>said corporation's claims that the elimination of consumer rights is the
>>>only way to restore balance to the marketplace.
>
>
> Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>So now "consumer's rights" includes the right to steal?
>
>
> This conversation would go along a lot better if you would get your head out
> of your ass and pay attention to what people are saying instead of injecting
> your idiocy where it doesn't belong. I said absolutely nothing close to
> what you imply I said and I call you on your attempt to willfully
> misrepresent my words in order to imply an ad-hominem attack discounting
> what I *did* say. Your actions (bad analogies, misrepresentation,
> invalid logic) do not paint your defense of your point of view in a very
> good light.
>
> So are you interested in debating the issue or just calling people names?
I know what an ad-homonem attack is, and you apparently do not.
Show me where I "called you a name".
Show me where I disparaged you as opposed to you argument.
Put up or shut up.
pht42
> First of all, this sentence is terrible.
YM "I surrender on semantics, let me try a grammar flame" HTH
--
ph...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
pht42
You are simply never going to eliminate crime by asking people not
to do it. There is always going to be a percentage of human beings
willing and able to commit any given crime during any given time
period. If a crime is possible and rewards its perpetrator in any
given way, assume that this crime will eventually occur.
So don't curse human nature, put more effort into preventing crimes.
If you don't want intellectual property to be massively copied, don't
make it in a format that allows this. Thats one reason I don't mind
technical measures that prevent copying, if I want to experience the
multimedia enough, I'll put up with the copy protection measures.
Thats the RIAA's biggest error, we've all known for the life of the
CD format that it was easily copyable. Its like leaving gold in the
middle of the street with a sign saying "don't steal".
Of course this also assumes that every act of copying is theft, which
is a bit of a bogus argument in itself, and has been debated enough
already :-)
pht42
> Learn the basics of "my effort - my reward" and you'll understand why
> it's theft.
Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material isn't legal. Its not
theft though, thats a common mistunderstanding. Let me know if you'd
like some reading material regarding this common intellectual gaff.
pht42
> rudedogs wrote:
> > I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
Pretty simple. By the publishers leaving the artists' work
laying around in an easily copyable format, the publishers cheat
the artists out of good money. So since the publishers get money
but don't provide the service, you could label that stealing.
If the artist can't make money from working in art then they may
spend less time on their art and more time doing regular work to
pay the rent.
Art is a wonderful part of life, the internet is a marvelous
communication medium, you'd think that the two would be a great
combination, a dream come true, but of course us humans once
again have made a mess of everything.
> How is stealing a car stealing money from anyone?
Deprives the owner of transportation.
pht42
> I have A Question. How is downloadinf mp3 songs stealing money from anyone?
> If I will not pay for it anyway, but i do download it they have lost nothin.
> since i would't pay for it anyway. All i have doen is bypas the radio lol
>
> only one i feel i am hurting is the radio stations since i now no longer
> listen to it lol
>
> besides check the statistics. music sales rose last year not drop. so do the
> math. more people download the mp3's and sales rise... um were is the loss
> theer talking about?
The real secret about the RIAA is not that existing artists get their
songs copied, the RIAA cares nothing about this, their greatest fear
is that nonmember musicians can have _their_ music listened to.
Think of the RIAA as a union, and independant musicians as "scabs".
this makes the internet a magic tunnel under the picket line so to
speak.
Forget all the other arguments about theft, etc, thats just smoke
and mirrors hiding the real issues.
RB
"|{evin" <Matthew...@Melissa.insightbb.Malayna.com> wrote in message
news:ZqiS9.460092$pN3.49459@sccrnsc03...
> Blue Agent wrote:
> >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:51:32 -0500, RB <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> the last attack was from one guy we tracked to Canada. He was just
> an ass
> >> trying to cause problems. We tracked him and set dos bots to his
> primary ip.
> >
> >Why, you 31337 h4><0r j00. You do realise that where his IP address
> resolves
> >to is not necessarily where the offender is, don't you?
>
> (Using Outlook, btw)
>
> This is certainly true, if the attacker is using a compromised host...
> then yes, most people would wind up tracking down the compromised
> host. Taking out this host won't take out the attacker, but it WILL
> cut off that limb of the attacker. It also may make the moron running
> the compromised host wake up and install some patches and updates.
>
> --
> Kevin
> My kids seem to always be around, remove them to reply
> directly to me.
>
>
Jacob News
>I know what an ad-homonem attack is, and you apparently do not.
Indeed you seem to think you do.
>Show me where I "called you a name".
Your words branded me a defender of theft. Your words were false on their
face and you knew there were false on their face because I was very specific
to make sure I was clear about that.
>Show me where I disparaged you as opposed to you argument.
You misrepresnted my words to make it appear as though I was defending
theft when you knew very well this was a flagrant misrepresentation of
my words, both misleading and false. You thus attempted to make *me* look
like I was advocating theft when I was advocating the exact opposite.
>Put up or shut up.
I would encourage you to engage your brain before opening your mouth.
I'm on your side of this and you're too brain-damaged to notice it because
you're so blinded by your own idiotic fantasies of intellectual property
extremism.
See, I can engage in ad hominem attacks too. Isn't it fun? En Garde!
Jacob News
> My point here, is that you need to brush up on the basics of grammar... it
>will save you from writing these convoluted sentences, (and save us from
>reading them)
If you lack the intellectual capacity to read a sentence with more complexity
than "See Dick run." that is not my fault. I suggest remedial english classes.
Stephen Dedalus
improvement. In fact, I said, "you need to brush up on the basics of
grammar"... to which I would add "you need to fully appreciate the meaning
of the words you use". So often Jacob you choose to include words in your
absurd diatribes that are completely inappropriate, and in sentences whose
structures are absurd... not hard to understand mind you... just poorly
crafted. That is a clear sign of a pseudointellect, and a boor. My point was
simple kid; don't overreach yourself.... you sound like a fool when you do.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1c5...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Farzan
"RB" <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:JFednSLzhZb...@comcast.com...
> I'm an ircop on Dal-Net, Criten and GlobalX. We know what we are doing
You obviously don't know enough not to top-post.
kristnjov
That's one reason why I hate Usenet. Not top-posting, but you bitches who
keep complaining about irrelevant stuff whenever you "lose" a discussion.
Stephen Dedalus
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"kristnjov" <kris...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ROZS9.5259$LY2.3...@newsc.telia.net...
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
"Stephen Dedalus" <inspe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xq_S9.682307$QZ.104230@sccrnsc02...
IRCop on 3 networks too....I'm impressed.
NOT.
--
UnitSixFortyNine
ForeverChat IRC Network Founder
Services including Chanserv, Nickserv, Hostserv, Botserv and MemoServ.
Free Services for channels with 10+ users including bot and webhosting.
/server irc.foreverchat.net -- http://www.foreverchat.net
Network Founded Nov 7 2001 -- Servers in the US, EU, CA
Andy Smith
Andy Smith
> I know what an ad-homonem attack is, and you apparently do not.
>
> Show me where I "called you a name".
>
> Show me where I disparaged you as opposed to you argument.
>
> Put up or shut up.
What you did was you constructed a straw man ("Jacob supports copyright
theft!") and then you attacked it. What you did NOT point out is that
Jacob never did suggest that copyright theft was the right thing, in fact
he strenuously argued against it!
Anyone who managed to misunderstand his post so badly is either retarded,
extremely careless, wilfully trying to misrepresent him or a mixture of the
three.
Really, go back and read it again. Then read it a third time. He didn't
say what you claim he said.
Jacob News
>I didn't say I failed to understand them Jacob, I said they needed vast
>improvement. In fact, I said, "you need to brush up on the basics of
>grammar"... to which I would add "you need to fully appreciate the meaning
>of the words you use". So often Jacob you choose to include words in your
>absurd diatribes that are completely inappropriate, and in sentences whose
>structures are absurd... not hard to understand mind you... just poorly
>crafted. That is a clear sign of a pseudointellect, and a boor. My point was
>simple kid; don't overreach yourself.... you sound like a fool when you do.
I'm supposed to take grammar lessons from someone who uses '...'s like
they were a legitimite punctuation mark? No thanks. I'll stick to
standard english instead of the "dumbshit english" you choose to speak.
Stephen Dedalus
They denote a passage of time or omitted text. Yet another instance where
you've said something which reveals your complete lack of any knowledge or
ability. My advice to you Jacob; quit now. Every time you reply to me, or
others you sound a little more foolish, and a little less informed. I'm
thrilled that your best criticism was that I use a lot of elipses. In your
position I would have pointed out my consistantly awful spelling, and use of
the vernacular. Of course, given some of the butchered "english" you've had
in your posts (do I need to cut and paste a little montage?), you probably
didn't recognize those flaws.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1c9313$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Stephen Dedalus
watching you squirm as soooo many people have pointed out the various holes
in what passes for your logic. I'm not usually much of a fan of usenet, but
I've actually had fun tweaking you, and teasing out each absurd statement,
it's made for a nice, if brief, diversion.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Stephen Dedalus" <inspe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1R0T9.613599$P31.230695@rwcrnsc53...
rudedogs
Yes downloading an mp3 is stealing, But if say i have NO money, and download
song A. i get to listen to the song.. the artest (well mostly record
company) not make any. But If I didn't download it they still wouldn't of
made a dime from me.
So either way they end with nothin. So Did I for downloading the song steal
money from there pocket, when the money wouldn't of been there either way?
NO.
There is another fact for you. THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN STOP people from
downloading mp3's. short of banning the internet.
They should learn to work with what we have and stop trying to stop whats
already there. would be like me saying Its a crime for the world to turn .
make a law to stop it. IT will not happen lol.
rudedogs
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1b6c57$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
rudedogs
"Rick" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:TIIS9.2275$7h3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> rudedogs wrote:
> > What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is grow
up.
> > Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
> > computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
>
> Riiight! At the moment, we pay a tax on every single blank cassette
> tape we buy, that tax put in place by our government because of theft of
> music, etc. Currently they are looking at applying the same sort of tax
> to recordable CDs and to hard drives - at a rate of 10$ a Gb in the case
> of a hard drive. That would put the price of a 40 Gb drive over $500 -
>
gee If the US tried that I would just buy my hard drive on the net from over
seas lol.
They already placed so much tax on cigs that no one in right mind would pay
for them here in this State. I buy my smokes from the swiss(camels $13.95)
at local store there $46.95 that tells you how much tax is there.
Now the goverment ends up with nothin and a company in another country makes
all the money,
Sry for my spelling errors. I whent to a pubplic school here in USA and was
4.0... gee were did the school tax go it shure wasn't to educate us.
rudedogs
"pht42" <ph...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030108...@iceland.freeshell.org...
I do not think they can make any kind of mucis copyproof.
they may find a way to make it were its not as good as the origanal. but not
stop it.
Like that cd format i heard on news about last year that computers can't
play.
Gee i have a sound input on my soundcard.. I will just play the cd on my cd
player and send it to that.
oops did i just crack there copyprotection.
guess there back to the drawing board lol
Jacob News
>They're called "elipses" and it turns out that they ARE valid punctuation.
But! no't in, the way... you; "were" using them.
>I'm thrilled that your best criticism was that I use a lot of elipses.
Your best criticism of me was to argue that my choice of words was somewhat
more advanced than your reading level. Your next post then said that you
somehow "won" the argument because I was responding to you in the same manner
you responded to me. This is a wonderful example of the fallacy of
transferrance and the only thing you "win" is a dunce cap.
You never at any time made any attempt to refute anything I said, you just
started in with the attacks on how my diction and grammar was better than
yours and how you felt hopelessly inadequate trying to read my insightful
and prosaic missives, and then it kind of went downhill from there.
You stand guilty of your own condemnation. When you make the first attempt
to attack my ideas instead of me, I will respond in kind, as I have
graciously done all along.
En garde!
Jacob News
>It occurs to me that I should probably thank you Jacob. I've really enjoyed
>watching you squirm as soooo many people have pointed out the various holes
>in what passes for your logic. I'm not usually much of a fan of usenet, but
>I've actually had fun tweaking you, and teasing out each absurd statement,
>it's made for a nice, if brief, diversion.
It has been my esteemed pleasure to have been a source of enjoyment for
you, as if you would be so kind as to read my google posting history, you
will discover that is my primary existance here.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tq52su9kd6ao05%40corp.supernews.com>
I am not here to engage in intellectually stimulating philisophical
discussions, so don't try to trick me in one. I am here to entertain
myself and whoever else finds my off-kilter tripe amusing. If you find me
unfunny, I only suggest that you try to find it in your heart to get a
sense of humor and to ignore me.
For more supporting material, also see...
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tvia7k7at8vr6c%40corp.supernews.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=trsk9vc7pbdfe5%40corp.supernews.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=trp59hevqh4ed1%40corp.supernews.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u0a5p1n6esdu03%40corp.supernews.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u0nmqqj3vf8k2f%40corp.supernews.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3cf567c3%241_4%40corp.newsgroups.com>
Sorry to disappoint you. We've been trolling each other it seems.
But if you download mp3's you are still an ignorant putz.
Jacob News
>But if say i have NO money, and download song A. i get to listen to the
>song.. the artest (well mostly record company) not make any. But If I
>didn't download it they still wouldn't of made a dime from me.
I've made this point abundantly clear in other posts I have made already.
You should go back and read what I've been saying because I already understand
this point quite well.
HOWEVER that does not negate the fact that for most people, when they run
out of money, they do without, rather than freeloading on others without
asking permission first. Even though no money is lost, attempting to
justify this freeloading behavior as socially acceptable usually falls on
deaf ears. It's time to find a new argument!
>They should learn to work with what we have and stop trying to stop whats
>already there. would be like me saying Its a crime for the world to turn .
>make a law to stop it. IT will not happen lol.
The record industry is looking for a little bit of respect. So far, they
have not found any. While I vociferously disagree with their tactics, I
understand quite well why their tactics are so draconian.
What mp3 freeloaders and copyright extremists don't seem to understand is
that it's possible for someone to see both sides of the issue and realize
that the truth is in there somewhere. I claim to be in the middle on this
issue and that makes me neither a tool of the copyright gestapo nor a theiving
criminal pirate. It just means i'm not a fanatical extremist like some would
have me be.
-Jacob
Richard Revis
> But if you download mp3's you are still an ignorant putz.
<hoping i didnt miss this bit in the thread>
But I will never install DRM of any type as I do not want it. It is my right
to copy my CDs to MP3 to play on my network/on my MP3 player. The RIAA can
shove their head up their a$$ as they would prefer if we lived in a police
state rather than letting consumers enjoy their rights to fair use of
copyright material.
--
You might not be the best looking girl here, but beauty is only a light
switch away.
0:33pm up 5 days, 3:16, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.06, 0.11
RX bytes:1182322516 (1127.5 Mb) TX bytes:3631013574 (3462.8 Mb)
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.
Rick
> Rick <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>I know what an ad-homonem attack is, and you apparently do not.
>
>
> Indeed you seem to think you do.
>
>
>>Show me where I "called you a name".
>
>
> Your words branded me a defender of theft. Your words were false on their
> face and you knew there were false on their face because I was very specific
> to make sure I was clear about that.
>
>
>>Show me where I disparaged you as opposed to you argument.
>
>
> You misrepresnted my words to make it appear as though I was defending
> theft when you knew very well this was a flagrant misrepresentation of
> my words, both misleading and false. You thus attempted to make *me* look
> like I was advocating theft when I was advocating the exact opposite.
>
>
>>Put up or shut up.
>
>
> I would encourage you to engage your brain before opening your mouth.
> I'm on your side of this and you're too brain-damaged to notice it because
> you're so blinded by your own idiotic fantasies of intellectual property
> extremism.
>
> See, I can engage in ad hominem attacks too. Isn't it fun? En Garde!
I am amazed at your belief in your ability to "know" what I thought.
Jacob News
>I am amazed at your belief in your ability to "know" what I thought.
Likewise!
Stephen Dedalus
esteemed pleasure..." this is simply a terrible use, if not an incorrect
use, of the word "esteemed". Further examples, "This conversation would go
along a lot better...", "Your words were false on their face and you knew
there were false on their face because I was very specific..." (I
particularly liked that one as it reminded me of my niece's favorite cartoon
character... some talking monkey on the cartoon network), "I'm supposed to
take grammar lessons from someone who uses '...'s like they were a
You summed it up nicely with, "my... tripe". Oh look, an example of one of
many uses of the "elipses" you seem to think is not real punctuation. lol
You say I didn't respond initially to your points (such as they were)...
However, I did post this in response to your nonsense at the beginning of
this farce:
"If you identify every person who downloads mp3's, and warez, and
movies... how do you think they will be prosecuted? If you tried
to pursue a
fraction of those people in criminal or civil proceedings the
cost would be
staggering (and prohibitive if not bankrupting) and the sheer
volume of
cases would collapse the US lower court system. If you think
that hardware
based infringment will be successful, think about how many of
your programs
come with dongles... not too damned many. And why is that? THEY
FAILED. If
it's hardwired in or coded into the software the sheer number of
people
motivated by desire for the product and the sheer challenge (see
sony's old
challenge) is more than enough to break it. The number of people
that
record, software, and movie companies can hire is the same from
one day to
another, but the number of people who pirate (oh sorry, trade)
mp3's
software and movies grows RAPIDLY. The number of people with
broadband
access, and access to computers around the world is growing by
leaps and
bounds, and the technology such as it is, is still young "
As for me saying you won something, I assure you that I didn't. Your
pathetic attempt at mockery is just the latest low in your "argument's" long
decline from boorish arrogance to puerile inchorerence. I find it odd that
you claim not be trying to stimulate a conversation here; wasn't it you who
posted "So are you interested in debating the issue or just calling people
names?.." Debate you said, but then, you also were the one who initialy
claimed a while back that you were trying MERELY to stimulate precisely what
you now claim NOT to be doing. To anyone who has been reading these posts,
you just appear foolish; either choosing to ignore, or never having read
what you then purport to address. As for the entire issue of my critique of
your english skills, I would sum it up thusly: It's not that I don't
understand what you're saying, it's that YOU don't understand what you're
saying; something that comes accross every time you use words you clearly
don't know the meaning of, or structure a sentence so poorly that it seems
to have been written by apes.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:3e1ca3bf$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Stephen Dedalus
legislation resulting in taxes, or added charges resulting from "preventive"
technology, it might have a devestating effect on the domestic computer
market. Congress would be violating international aggreements and trade
treaties aplenty if they limited imports, and so our domestic market would
move abroad. Either manufacturers would cross borders, or consumers would,
devestating the manufacturers who stayed. Really, mp3's don't sound as good
as a cd, but many people still love them. The RIAA members already have
thrown their hat into the "legal" mp3 download arena... so limiting the
quality would be mind bogglingly complex. I think it's fair to say that
digital media is simply a new situation that legislation is ill equipped to
deal with. I only wish that our government put more energy into stemming the
tide of child pornography (do a /list on dalnet and see what I mean) and
spend LESS time defending corporate interests like the RIAA.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"rudedogs" <rude...@DIRECTVInternet.com> wrote in message
news:3e1ca13d$1...@nopics.sjc...
Jacob News
>You summed it up nicely with, "my... tripe". [snip]
You don't have to troll me any more -- we've exchanged pleasantries.
It would be about this juncture I would point out the hopelessness
of attempting to correct someone who has already publicly stipulated
that they're just trolling you, but I would have to think such a method
of helpfullness would be moot by now. So just go back to downloading
your mp3's off of kazaa and leave the flaming to the honest people.
Delta5
--
Delta5
Founder
USAchat Network
irc.usachat.net
www.usachat.net
www.irc-forum.stormhosts.com
Tom Bampton
"Richard Revis" <spamsentto...@bottest.com> wrote in message
news:3e1ca89b$0$29918$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...
> Jacob News used a team of monkeys to generate this reply:
>
> > But if you download mp3's you are still an ignorant putz.
>
> <hoping i didnt miss this bit in the thread>
>
> But I will never install DRM of any type as I do not want it. It is my
right
> to copy my CDs to MP3 to play on my network/on my MP3 player. The RIAA can
> shove their head up their a$$ as they would prefer if we lived in a police
> state rather than letting consumers enjoy their rights to fair use of
> copyright material.
IMHO DRM is as much an evil as the theft it tries (unsuccessfully) to
prevent.
Tom Bampton
"pht42" <ph...@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.33.030108...@iceland.freeshell.org...
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Rick wrote:
>
> > > What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is
grow up.
> > > Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
> > > computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
> >
> > Riiight! At the moment, we pay a tax on every single blank cassette
> > tape we buy, that tax put in place by our government because of theft of
> > music, etc. Currently they are looking at applying the same sort of tax
> > to recordable CDs and to hard drives - at a rate of 10$ a Gb in the case
> > of a hard drive. That would put the price of a 40 Gb drive over $500 -
> > a price I don't particularly want to pay because _you_ want to steal.
<snippage>
> If you don't want intellectual property to be massively copied, don't
> make it in a format that allows this. Thats one reason I don't mind
> technical measures that prevent copying, if I want to experience the
> multimedia enough, I'll put up with the copy protection measures.
Let us put it like this:
The problem with copy protection is that the work (be it music, software,
whatever) has to be usable. Therefore, the CD player, computer, whatever has
to be able to play or run said work. Music must be played, if it can be
heard it can be recorded. If software can be run on a computer, it can be
reverse engineered. The only method of copy protection that actually works
is to not create the work in the first place.
Personally, as you may of guessed I would not put up with copy protection
methods. I despise theft, but I also despise anyone other then me deciding
what I can and cant do with my property. If someone wants to force that onto
me, then as far as I am concerned they just lost a customer. There is
nothing I dont have now that I cant live without (I'm living without it now,
arent I? :)..), so I have no problem with it.
> Thats the RIAA's biggest error, we've all known for the life of the
> CD format that it was easily copyable. Its like leaving gold in the
> middle of the street with a sign saying "don't steal".
All recording formats since the dawn of time and for the rest of eternity
are easily copyable, as stated above. Conversely, if you left a pile of gold
in the street with a sign saying "steal me," nobody would. Aint human nature
strange ? :)
T.
Founder-irc.foreverchat.net
"Delta5" <ad...@usachat.net> wrote in message
news:yh3T9.5274$37.5...@cletus.bright.net...
The topic grew hair, didn't it?
Neo
up.
>Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short >of banning
computers and internet world wide will stop it >now
Do you a search on the net for palladium or TCPA, read what you find and
rethink that statement
Tammy
Tammy
LOL i love you Jacob
Andy Smith
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:21:21 -0500, Stephen Dedalus wrote:
>
>> Examples of your poor grasp of the english language: "It has been my
>> esteemed pleasure..." this is simply a terrible use, if not an incorrect
> [snip]
>
> A nice long rant, which has what to do with the discussion at hand?
After he's answered that maybe you could all suggest how "the discussion at
hand" is suitable for the groups it is being posted to.
(not an invitation for a pedant to say "well, alt.irc has no charter so
therefore I can post what I like! aha!")
It started off utterly silly, mutated into "mp3z are kewl" "no they suk" and
ended up as "har har my grammer iz better than urz". And now I guess I am
perpetuating it. But maybe we could start to turn it back so it is more
on-topic for IRC groups?
Stephen Dedalus
R&D phase. Given MS' track record I find it extremely hard to believe they
could implement this flawlessly (and they would need to for it to succeed).
Remember that the fundamental strength of spam, piracy, etc... is that a
VAST number of highly motivated people have all the time in the world to
pick away at whatever MS or others devise. What costs MS scads of time and
money to develop, takes naught but time and skill to break. It's true that
any new impressive measure to block piracy and enhance security can
potentially inhibit things for a while... but only for a while. We've mostly
talked about kids and their mp3's, but piracy is BIG business when it runs
into bootlegging. Ripped off cd's sell by the millions in china, russia, and
yes, the USA. There are personal interests, criminal interests, and the
interests of bright people who realize that to let MS censor your spam ALSO
lets them filter everything else.
Remember also, that Dell and other companies ALSO profit from piracy.
People who make CD and DVD burners do. ISP's do. In fact, everyone along the
supply line of computing does. Keep in mind also, that 10% of people with
internet access have "broadband" access, and that "broadband" now is likely
to improve. Networks utilizing MASERS to manipulate so-called "carrier
frequencies" in conventional power lines are already in use. I would hold
that the nature of the interest of the masses of people with the skill to
attack various pieces of any attempt to curtail their theft, coupled with
the MASSIVE strides in technology from sources that don't rely on massive
R&D budgets negates any real solution to the "problem" of piracy.
Information is fungible and immaterial, and advances in storage,
transmission, and compression of it will only make the already impossible
job of managing it more obviously impossible. If you examine the state of
international EFT's, and the sheer impossiblity of tracing most of them, or
regulating the system as a whole, you gain a far better understanding of how
impotent MS or anyone is in the way of the tide of information. I don't
really know if this is a good thing, but I'm inclined to think it's not. I
may not like a lot of what is produced for our comsumption by way of movies,
music and the rest... but removing the profitability from it is probably NOT
the way to improve it. The fact that spam has moved from the minimally
invasive (but still DAMNED aggrevating) realm of telephone and mail into the
realm of PC's does not thrill me, but I accept it. I think what is likely to
emerge as time goes on, is a balence between spammers and people who seek to
protect themselves from spam. Some forms of communication won't survive, and
some opportunities for corporations to rake it in won't either. The
information age and all it implies is being handled by many people in power
as if it were some new wrinkle they could smooth out and incorporate into
short-sighted pre-existing plans, rather than something which requires new
plans entirely. I worry that in their panic at this new phenomenon, our
rights will be restricted to no avail, as in the case of this "war on
terror's" Patriot Act... Panicked legislation is probably going to lead to
some harsh restrictions for a while, and our responsiblity is to work to
minimize that impact... NOT bitch at each other about downloading mp3's.
Recognize that the ball is already rolling, and that human nature isn't
going to radically change just because our environment does. We change FAR
slower than our surrounding.
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Neo" <n...@NOSPAMcome-to-chat.com> wrote in message
news:avill8$qup$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Tony Miller
See you on DueyNet :)
> -Jacob
-Tony
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
Steve B
>
They probably have the resources
>and the people to do it, too. But I doubt their ability to actually pull it off.
Well if something as big as RIAA can't "pull it off" who do you
suggest it might be?
By implication, someone more powerful and better organised.
Steve B.
Steve B
(xXOiGodXx) wrote:
> Does anyone else think the RIAA could be behind the recent
>DALnet denial of service attacks? Before anyone is quick to flame me
>for taking credit away from the little 13 year old script kiddies who
>all of you are so sure are responsible for causing this mess.
>
> Do a quick search on google for "RIAA DoS Bill", and you will
>find articles on how the RIAA wants legal clearance as far as DoSing
>P2P networks. Since DALnet is one of the top warez/mp3 irc networks I
>would'nt doubt DALnet would be the first IRC Network targeted in a
>RIAA's massive P2P DoS wave.
>
>What's your opinion?
Not so. If you are under the delusion that anyone is attacking DALnet
to prevent illegal activity, then you are classed as a tinfoil hat
wearer.
No, it's an untutored individual hacker. Bound to be :-)
Steve B.
Stephen Dedalus
also doubt it's a lone "uninformed hacker". Given that you're the one who
seems to have "divined" the nature of the attacker... maybe you are the best
candidate for a tinfoil beenie :)
IL aka Stephen Dedalus
"Steve B" <s.b...@nospam-iecho.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3e1d0ab4...@news.paradise.net.nz...
Richard Revis
> IMHO DRM is as much an evil as the theft it tries (unsuccessfully) to
> prevent.
DRM is actually going to have a huge impact on theft - since when consumers
can no longer make copies of their own CDs to play on their computer (or in
the car for those with MP3 CD players, a fairly huge number now) they will
be forced to buy professionally mastered pirate CDs which have no DRM
protection. Since it is the real pirates (who will likley find a wqay to
get around DRM) who presend the real revenue loss the RIAA is to a large
extend shooting itself in the head.
--
DVD: Disappointing and Very Dear
7:18am up 5 days, 12:01, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.14, 0.33
RX bytes:1198535372 (1143.0 Mb) TX bytes:3633130606 (3464.8 Mb)
Steve B
wrote:
>begin post.txt
>
>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 05:19:17 +0200, Jan Knutar <shado...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>> Founder-irc.foreverchat.net wrote:
>>
>>> And right now, its not legal for the RIAA to DOS, if they were to do so, I
>>> would think it would seriously hurt thier position to do attacks before
>>> they
>>
>> Wouldn't that bill if it passed, only give them jurisdiction to do so in
>> the US?
>
>Yes, if it ever actually happened (pity you Americans if it did). Doing so
>anywhere else would render them liable to prosecution.
>
You seem to be rashly assuming that DOS attacks - or any other form of
organised interference with private digital communication - would be
illegal "anywhere else".
In New Zealand, to name one, we're still waiting - and have been
waiting for almost FOUR YEARS for the Crimes Amendment #6 Bill to be
passed.
www.idg.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/F006E6113401DC82CC25684C000E01D5?OpenDocument
dated September 14, 1999 is the earliest clipping I can find,
optimistically recording: "Bill may not be enacted into law before
2000". It had already been in front of Parliament for some months
before that. It keeps being pushed down the order paper by vested
interests and people who see it as unimportant.
NO form of hacking, including DoS, is illegal in NZ. We had to fight
even to get DoS included in the still un-passed bill, and it's by no
means certain that effective anti-DoS legislation will be passed.
www.idg.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/C91797A169734977CC256AB60008E714?OpenDocument
Now do you see why I suggest (apart from the simple evidence that
acute phases of the DALnet attacks appear denser and earlier here than
other countries) that the offenders may be in New Zealand?
I'd be interested to know how many other legal DoS and hacking
"havens" there are in the world.
Prosecuting the source of these attacks won't be that easy.
Steve B.
Farzan
"Steve B" <s.b...@nospam-iecho.co.nz> wrote in message news:3e1d0a45...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 09:33:38 GMT, "Farzan" <ro...@192.168.0.1> wrote:
>
> >
> They probably have the resources
>
> >and the people to do it, too. But I doubt their ability to actually pull it off.
>
> Well if something as big as RIAA can't "pull it off" who do you
> suggest it might be?
>
How long has the RIAA been chasing KaZaA and other similar filesharing programs? And have they had any success?
Certainly you'd think "something as big as RIAA" could do it with ease. But they haven't. Now, why could that be..
> By implication, someone more powerful and better organised.
>
"more powerful and better organized" than the RIAA... first thing that pops into my mind is the NHL ;)
I can assure you that the amount of bandwidth utilized by the recent attacks goes well above thousands of GBs.
The RIAA wouldn't put so much effort just to get rid of a minor filesharing/pirating source.
If you haven't noticed, there are networks out there that have hundereds of XDCC bots in just 1 channel.
And most of these networks started up _after_ the dalnet attacks. If you look at http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/,
the "Top 30" section; there are over 5-6 networks who's history does not exceed 3 months, but they have over 2-3K concurrent users.
People don't 'chat' on these networks, they simply go there to "leech".
Well, must be a coincidence that 6 networks with 2K users just came out of nowhere during the DALnet holocaust. *chuckle*
If the RIAA was trying to prevent filesharing, they did an awesome job ;)
BTW, as a last resort most of the big channels on DALnet moved to other networks.
Maybe the RIAA thought the channel founders are retards and didn't think that would happen.
In any case, the RIAA didn't do a good job stopping file sharing.
oh wait a minute, maybe it wasn't the RIAA!
Writing with your head, instead of your hands will make a big difference.
Write that down.
HAND,
FZ
pht42
> >
> > > rudedogs wrote:
> > > > What you that complain about people downloading mp3's need to do is
> grow up.
> > > > Its going to happen and nothin anyone is going to do short of banning
> > > > computers and internet world wide will stop it now.
> > >
> > > Riiight! At the moment, we pay a tax on every single blank cassette
> > > tape we buy, that tax put in place by our government because of theft of
> > > music, etc. Currently they are looking at applying the same sort of tax
> > > to recordable CDs and to hard drives - at a rate of 10$ a Gb in the case
> > > of a hard drive. That would put the price of a 40 Gb drive over $500 -
> > > a price I don't particularly want to pay because _you_ want to steal.
>
> <snippage>
>
> > If you don't want intellectual property to be massively copied, don't
> > make it in a format that allows this. Thats one reason I don't mind
> > technical measures that prevent copying, if I want to experience the
> > multimedia enough, I'll put up with the copy protection measures.
>
> Let us put it like this:
>
> The problem with copy protection is that the work (be it music, software,
> whatever) has to be usable. Therefore, the CD player, computer, whatever has
> to be able to play or run said work. Music must be played, if it can be
> heard it can be recorded. If software can be run on a computer, it can be
> reverse engineered. The only method of copy protection that actually works
> is to not create the work in the first place.
This isn't new. Whats new are the perfect digital copies.
Introducing a fidelity penalty offers a bit of motivation to
purchase the origional work.
I'd rather let the market figure out the appropriate way to
fund content creation. Unfortunately, we may instead have government
mandate content protection via mandatory DRM.
> Personally, as you may of guessed I would not put up with copy protection
> methods. I despise theft, but I also despise anyone other then me deciding
> what I can and cant do with my property. If someone wants to force that onto
> me, then as far as I am concerned they just lost a customer. There is
> nothing I dont have now that I cant live without (I'm living without it now,
> arent I? :)..), so I have no problem with it.
I agree also. Let the market decide. I tend to believe that the
market will happily lose you as a customer, enough folks enjoy the
content enough to put up with some inconvenience.
I would like to see DRM as an opt in measure, if I want to
listen/view/run, I opt in. Unfortunately, DRM may become mandatory,
whether I want the protected content or not.
> > Thats the RIAA's biggest error, we've all known for the life of the
> > CD format that it was easily copyable. Its like leaving gold in the
> > middle of the street with a sign saying "don't steal".
>
> All recording formats since the dawn of time and for the rest of eternity
> are easily copyable, as stated above. Conversely, if you left a pile of gold
> in the street with a sign saying "steal me," nobody would. Aint human nature
> strange ? :)
The VCR didn't kill the movie industry, but it wasn't a perfect digital
copy machine either.
Are you really sure the gold is safe in the street?
--
ph...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Tom Bampton
> Tom Bampton used a team of monkeys to generate this reply:
>
> > IMHO DRM is as much an evil as the theft it tries (unsuccessfully) to
> > prevent.
>
> DRM is actually going to have a huge impact on theft - since when
consumers
> can no longer make copies of their own CDs to play on their computer (or
in
> the car for those with MP3 CD players, a fairly huge number now) they will
> be forced to buy professionally mastered pirate CDs which have no DRM
> protection. Since it is the real pirates (who will likley find a wqay to
> get around DRM) who presend the real revenue loss the RIAA is to a large
> extend shooting itself in the head.
That's not strictly speaking true. Since a CD has to play on a CD player,
and I'm yet to see a CD player that has no audio out, you can just hook that
audio out into the audio in of your computer and hit play and record.
Yeh, there will be some people who go to the pirates to get it, but there
are now. Yeh, ripping a CD would be more time consuming then it is now, but
who cares really? It only has to be done once.
Personally, I like the freedom of being able to create a CD with the songs I
want to listen to at that moment in time and take it in the car. I bought
the CDs the tracks came from. DRM tries to remove that freedom.
T.
pht42
> Jacob News used a team of monkeys to generate this reply:
>
> > But if you download mp3's you are still an ignorant putz.
I disagree with this statement. Many independant artists are
delighted that their music is listened to, and mp3 is a marvelous
audio distribution format.
> <hoping i didnt miss this bit in the thread>
>
> But I will never install DRM of any type as I do not want it. It is my right
> to copy my CDs to MP3 to play on my network/on my MP3 player. The RIAA can
> shove their head up their a$$ as they would prefer if we lived in a police
> state rather than letting consumers enjoy their rights to fair use of
> copyright material.
Good point. The only "crime" would be violating copyright, and
the use you illustrate is fair use.
Unfortunately, the majority of folks nowadays seem to think a police
state isn't too bad a thing. Sad times indeed.
pht42
> I do not think they can make any kind of mucis copyproof.
> they may find a way to make it were its not as good as the origanal. but not
> stop it.
In the case of the VCR, that was plenty good enough. The movie
industry survived, prospered even. There is a fidelity penalty.
pht42
Its probably more a matter of convenience.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Farzan wrote:
> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:57:53 GMT
> From: Farzan <ro...@192.168.0.1>
> Newsgroups: alt.irc.dalnet, alt.irc, alt.irc.mirc
> Subject: Re: RIAA attacking DALnet?
>
>
> "RB" <rbar...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:JFednSLzhZb...@comcast.com...
> > I'm an ircop on Dal-Net, Criten and GlobalX. We know what we are doing
> <snip>
>
> You obviously don't know enough not to top-post.
>
>
>
--
Tom Bampton
That's true. However there is also the "I'd rather have the original and
support those who made it." There's a lot of people who think that way also.
> I'd rather let the market figure out the appropriate way to
> fund content creation. Unfortunately, we may instead have government
> mandate content protection via mandatory DRM.
I agree there. The day mandatory DRM occurs will be a very sad day indeed.
> > Personally, as you may of guessed I would not put up with copy
protection
> > methods. I despise theft, but I also despise anyone other then me
deciding
> > what I can and cant do with my property. If someone wants to force that
onto
> > me, then as far as I am concerned they just lost a customer. There is
> > nothing I dont have now that I cant live without (I'm living without it
now,
> > arent I? :)..), so I have no problem with it.
>
> I agree also. Let the market decide. I tend to believe that the
> market will happily lose you as a customer, enough folks enjoy the
> content enough to put up with some inconvenience.
>
> I would like to see DRM as an opt in measure, if I want to
> listen/view/run, I opt in. Unfortunately, DRM may become mandatory,
> whether I want the protected content or not.
What do you mean by that? If DRM becomes mandatory, you're forced to view
content you dont want to? If DRM does become mandatory, is the government
going to buy us all new CD/DVD players and computers ? I dont think so. I
still have 486s in active service, just think how long my uptodate(ish) main
machines will last (in terms of "i can do without a DRM based
computer/CD/DVD player") ;-)
Reminds me of DVDs that dont let you skip all the warnings and spinning
logos before the menu comes up. I really hate that since usually it takes a
minute or two to get to the actual menu, and I'm an impatient person
sometimes.
> > > Thats the RIAA's biggest error, we've all known for the life of the
> > > CD format that it was easily copyable. Its like leaving gold in the
> > > middle of the street with a sign saying "don't steal".
> >
> > All recording formats since the dawn of time and for the rest of
eternity
> > are easily copyable, as stated above. Conversely, if you left a pile of
gold
> > in the street with a sign saying "steal me," nobody would. Aint human
nature
> > strange ? :)
>
> The VCR didn't kill the movie industry, but it wasn't a perfect digital
> copy machine either.
MP3s arent a perfect digital copy, either, though.
> Are you really sure the gold is safe in the street?
Nope :) Though, humans are naturally suspicious, and have a tendency to do
the opposite of what they're told. If you saw a pile of gold in the street
with a sign saying "steal me," you'd immediately think "what's the catch?
I'm not touching that!" and walk on. Left there long enough somebody
probably would pinch it, though.
T.