Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 21 October 2002, 20:06
-
Heh, I don't think MS is against P2P networks afterall. Perhaps DRM will make P2P legal. Go Microsoft and Go Palladium..LoL ;P
http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0210/21/technology-617514.htm (http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0210/21/technology-617514.htm)
-
Microsoft has its own "plans" for p2p technoligy... i say ..
imagine a microsoft subscription p2p.... for upgradeing...etc etc..
-
quote:
Originally posted by M$sucks55:
Microsoft has its own "plans" for p2p technoligy... i say ..
imagine a microsoft subscription p2p.... for upgradeing...etc etc..
MS will never be able to kill P2P. Even if they managed to take out some of the popular P2P networks(like WinMX, Kazaa, E-Donkey, etc.) they will never be able to take out Gnutella(yes, I know that Gnutella was created by the Open Source community, so don't even mention that ;P). If we ever did lose the popular networks the Gnutella network will grow tremendously(which will benefit you Open Source users) because all of the Windows P2P users will migrate to it. How could MS possibly kill a network that is not owned by a company?
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
with this:
from C|Net (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=fd_lede)
quote:
Could Hollywood hack your PC?
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer
July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
update WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the 10-page bill this week.
there's more in the article, but you get the idea.
i don't have the time to check up on this, but this news article provides a wealth of links for further information...
another C|Net article (http://news.com.com/2010-1071-949275.html)
quote:
Geeks in government: A good idea?
By Declan McCullagh
August 12, 2002, 4:00 AM PT
WASHINGTON--There's a lot for a politically aware geek to be alarmed about nowadays.
Big companies are wielding copyright threats to stifle legitimate security research. Hollywood is itching to hack your PC. Your privacy is vanishing as fast as Al Gore's 2004 presidential hopes. And the merry band of technophobes in Congress is just getting started.
Too often, though, programmers, system administrators and other IT pros become understandably outraged by the latest attempts to restrict technology--and react by doing precisely the wrong thing. They set up irate Web sites, launch online petition drives and tell all their friends to write to their congressional representatives.
Here's the bitter truth: These efforts are mostly a waste of time. Sure, they may make you feel better, but they're not the way to win.
Take the widely reviled Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Even though Slashdotters have spent years buzzing around in circles over DMCA lawsuits brought by the Justice Department against Dmitry Sklyarov, and the big movie studios against 2600 magazine, Congress simply doesn't care.
Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property, says the law is "performing the way we hoped." No bill has been introduced in Congress to rescind the DMCA for one simple reason: Official Washington loves the law precisely as much as hackers and programmers despise it. Some of Washington's most powerful insiders even gathered in May to toast the DMCA with glasses of champagne.
Things aren't getting better. The House of Representatives voted 385-3 last month to approve life prison sentences for malicious computer hackers. The Senate approved the USA Patriot Act, which expanded police ability to perform Internet surveillance without a court order, by a 98-1 vote last fall.
Trust me, a few--even a few thousand--peeved e-mail messages won't change vote totals that lopsided. (Did you know the Senate approved the DMCA unanimously?) Washington's political class is used to ignoring frenzied yowls from far more organized and well-funded groups than "geektivists" can hope to emulate anytime soon.
Instead, technologists should be doing what comes naturally: inventing technology that outpaces the law and could even make new laws irrelevant.
"They're much better off doing what they do best, writing code," says Sonia Arrison of the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank in San Francisco. "That's where their competitive advantage lies."
Put another way, who made a bigger difference: Yet another letter-scribbling activist or Phil Zimmermann, who wrote the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption software? How about Shawn Fanning, the man who created Napster? Or the veterans of the Internet Engineering Task Force, which oversees the fundamental protocols of the Internet?
It's true that such an approach isn't for everyone. Tech companies, of course, need to take a defensive stance. "There's a difference between geeks and the technology industry," Arrison says. "I wouldn't say it's wise for the technology industry to ignore government. But individual tech people are probably better off spending their energy writing code than being part of the political process."
Adam Back, an encryption researcher living in Canada, says that he tries to ignore day-to-day developments in the news. "What's the point?" Back asks. "You know whatever they are working on will be pretty much exclusively damaging to Net freedoms and personal liberty. New laws are almost exclusively damaging to personal freedoms these days."
"By participating in the lobby process, you're effectively giving money to the political system," Back says. "It's effectively a favor-trading system where the politician wins and the geek loses...You're better of spending time writing code and influencing Internet protocols to work towards making the politicians irrelevant in the future."
That's the motto of the Cypherpunks, a group of programmers-turned-activists who first met in Silicon Valley a decade ago and graced the second cover of Wired magazine. They recognized that technology is a more effective tool than the political process to stop governments from overreaching. (An example: Unlike Supreme Court justices who may change their views on privacy, the algorithms embedded in encryption software won't stop working because of political pressure.)
Lance Cottrell is a former Cypherpunk who founded Anonymizer.com, a San Diego company that announced an improved fee-based anonymous browsing service last week.
"I'm of two minds," Cottrell says. "On one hand, I think it's important that the (technologist) perspective be aired. But I think that rather few geeks are temperamentally suited for lobbying. I think there's a cultural tendency toward bluntness and directness, which is not the bread and butter of politics."
Before starting his company, Cottrell wrote the free mixmaster software that allows people to send e-mail anonymously." People can sit around saying, 'Is it a good idea to have anonymity or not?'" Cottrell said. "But if you actually implement it, you can say, 'How do you want to deal with this reality?' It's not that my writing the code created the reality. The possibility was always there. But my writing the code made it impossible to ignore."
'the DMCA is preforming the way we hoped'?
see from the EFF (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequences.html). That is exactly what they want....
and now i hafta go to sckool. later;
-t.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: beltorak0 ]
-
quote:
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line.
Apart from the obvious absurdity of this proposal, a little side-note: isn't the internet *itself* a peer-to-peer network?
-
quote:
Originally posted by DC:
Apart from the obvious absurdity of this proposal, a little side-note: isn't the internet *itself* a peer-to-peer network?
Nope, generally it's client/server.
-
absurd or not, it might become legal. Personally, I think that the U.S. detaining a Russian citizen for six months without due process is absurd, but it did happen.
-t.
-
Ok so do you think Canada will be safe from the BS stuff that happens in the US for a very long time? Maybe Canadians need to take action soon to protect our future against such idiocy?
I've pretty much lose faith in the US, and am fanatically anti-US. Of course I always think of the goverments and the corps, not the citizens... although they are always a popular joke. ;)
-
quote:
Ok so do you think Canada will be safe from the BS stuff that happens in the US for a very long time? Maybe Canadians need to take action soon to protect our future against such idiocy?
I've pretty much lose faith in the US, and am fanatically anti-US. Of course I always think of the goverments and the corps, not the citizens... although they are always a popular joke.
It would certainly be in the best interests of Canada to act now to keep from going down the same road as the USA. ;) The DMCA has already done much to stifle legitimate research, to drive innovative new products from the market, has forced tech conferences off-shore. When Russia's equivalent of the State Dept. issues travel advisories warning Russian programmers to steer clear of the US (WHUDDA Reversal of roles that is! :eek: ), when programming becomes a crime, there's something awfully wrong here. This has given Canada a golden opportunity. Since the public education system here in this country keeps turning out one generation dumber than the last, since Silicon Valley would grind to a halt without all those Pakistanis, Indians, Koreans, Indonesians - all Canada has to do is resist this DMCA nonsense, and they'll simply leave the US farther and farther behind (http://tongue.gif) . So,Canadians, here's your chance to finally get even and get out from the shadow of your neighbor to the south.
Between Dubya, Ashcroft, Hollings, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and all the rest of it, I'll probably be joining you in the not too distant future.
Since the USA is becoming more and more like the former Soviet Union, it really makes one wonder: why did we bother to fight the Cold War? :confused:
________________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Nope, generally it's client/server.
however according to my history of the internet book, Bob Taylor originally set up ARPANet to be peer to peer, since timesharing (client/server) already existed at several universities and institutions. He knew this but wanted a way for two computers (not one computer and a terminal) to 'talk' to each other, even usin different languages and operating systems.
You know this all already void main, i just quoted you because it reminded me of this and i felt i had to mention the internet's p2p beginnings.
I haven't got to the bit in my book yet where they all make it work and decide on a set of protocols, I'm only up to about 1966...
-
Canada has extradition (sp?) laws; the US can request the Canadian government to hand you over.... at least as best as I can remember. I would say Australia, but they have more restrictive tech laws than the US or EU. Maybe the area referred to as Russia (what are they called, anyway?). I agree, that is a hell of a roll reversal. Hmm... Switzerland Anyone? Maybe Finland. yeah. Finland. hehe.
must go to school
must go to sleep...
-t.
-
quote:
Canada has extradition (sp?) laws; the US can request the Canadian government to hand you over.... at least as best as I can remember.
Perhaps, but it would be problematic if you weren't breaking any Canadian laws, and weren't doing anything illegal while within the jurisdiction of the US gov't, which ends at the Canadian border. quote:
Switzerland Anyone?
Not too likely. The Swiss are very pickey about who they let in. Becoming a citizen there is damn near impossible. As for Finland, well, I don't know how they are concerning immigration. quote:
Maybe the area referred to as Russia (what are they called, anyway?).
The Russian Federation. A possibility, although they are having some real difficulties of their own. If they could just get their shit together, they'd be awesome. As long ago as the 1830s, Alexis de Toqueville was claiming that Russia could be the next great land of opportunity.
A title the USA may very well have to relinquish (along with the Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave) if Dubya, Cheney, Ashcroft, and the rest of those assholes in washington D.C. get their way. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
_____________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
MS will never be able to kill P2P. Even if they managed to take out some of the popular P2P networks(like WinMX, Kazaa, E-Donkey, etc.) they will never be able to take out Gnutella(yes, I know that Gnutella was created by the Open Source community, so don't even mention that ;P). If we ever did lose the popular networks the Gnutella network will grow tremendously(which will benefit you Open Source users) because all of the Windows P2P users will migrate to it. How could MS possibly kill a network that is not owned by a company?
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
TCPA is how, thats why it must be stopped. And LimeWire is the best GnuTella frontend.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
however according to my history of the internet book, Bob Taylor originally set up ARPANet to be peer to peer, since timesharing (client/server) already existed at several universities and institutions. He knew this but wanted a way for two computers (not one computer and a terminal) to 'talk' to each other, even usin different languages and operating systems.
You know this all already void main, i just quoted you because it reminded me of this and i felt i had to mention the internet's p2p beginnings.
I haven't got to the bit in my book yet where they all make it work and decide on a set of protocols, I'm only up to about 1966...
You are correct that it was "designed" that way. But how it was designed and how it is used are two different things. I can only go back about 12 years when I started my Internet life. Prior to that it was more of a peer to peer network. Back then I was in the military and the majority of Internet users were college and military. It was just prior to the commercialization quagmire that it has become (starting when Windows desktops entered the mix, whoda thunk?).
Dialup home access just started becoming feasible around 10 years ago. Of course most people used Windows 3.x and had around 14.4k modems. No server capabilities (nor would you want them on a 14.4k dialup). Client/Server was really was the only option over slow dialup.
Even 12 years ago before dialup when I was using high speed lines at my work, client/server was how the Internet was primarily used. Organizations would have one or two machines set up as a server for FTP and/or gopher (pre HTTP server) that they used to share data between organizations and within organizations.
I say that peer to peer is actually more used now than it ever was in my Internet life and that is because broadband connections have become available for the home user. Even still, Client/Server is still the mothod most used. Peer to peer is on the rise though.
Here is another link I found that agrees with your statement that it was designed as a peer to peer network, but also states that it evolved into client/server:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/peertopeer/chapter/ch01.html (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/peertopeer/chapter/ch01.html)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
MS will never be able to kill P2P. Even if they managed to take out some of the popular P2P networks(like WinMX, Kazaa, E-Donkey, etc.) they will never be able to take out Gnutella(yes, I know that Gnutella was created by the Open Source community, so don't even mention that ;P). If we ever did lose the popular networks the Gnutella network will grow tremendously(which will benefit you Open Source users) because all of the Windows P2P users will migrate to it. How could MS possibly kill a network that is not owned by a company?
Yup. How could anyone kill something not owned by a company? :cool:
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
Yup. How could anyone kill something not owned by a company? :cool:
The only way I figure is if you have the hardware manufacturers onboard your nazi warship. Palladium/TCPA.
[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
Yes, just like they bought a million other companies ...
-
basically, never use, create, share, absolutely ANYTHING in windows media format
Nuff said?
-
i read the first 3 posts so i dunno if the topic changed or not:
why would ms (notice i dont capitalize ms because it implies that it is something actaully WORTH my extra key-pressing.) try and stop P2P anyways? i would see them like, intigrating it into there new Windows version and try and to exploit it in some way, because thats what they do.