Schools crack down on Net music software Napster
Music & MP3
5/2/2000; 3:39:36 PM You can probably guess Slashdot's reaction. I would point out that the Acceptable Use policy directly addresses this, and that university's don't truly have an obligation to provide any Internet servies. I think the most interesting thing is the primary cited reason is bandwidth, not legality issues. In other words, the university doesn't care that some of the copying may be legal. Another neat sidestepping of the issues (but in this case, that's probably good... university are in the business of education, not litigation).

A college network administrator's comment pretty much back me up on this.

Pause!
Personal Notes
5/2/2000; 10:57:33 AM The conversion of old stories on this site is continuing apace... however, petty life details are getting in the way of me continuing. All the news currently on this site is old news... so don't panic

I've got to eat lunch and then take an exam, so this will pick back up somewhere around 3 p.m. EST. Wish me luck!

Clinton Favors Computer Snooping
Surveillance and Privacy from Government
5/2/2000; 10:55:16 AM Jan 20, 2000: I wonder if Internet advocates have overstated their case to the federal government a bit. Is it any surprise that after years of being told that the Internet is beyond their comprehension, and that one motivated "hacker" can Destroy the World Economy in a Single Keystroke, that the federal government is grabbing every power they can get, regardless of such petty details as the Constitution?

iCraveTV
Boundary Breakers
5/2/2000; 10:53:30 AM ICraveTV "rebroadcasted" (past tense) (read: redistributed) the output of every publicly broadcast TV station out of Toronto, Canada on the Internet.

ICraveTV is Served Up a Lawsuit
Television & Movies
5/2/2000; 10:51:52 AM Jan 20, 2000: "'This is a clear and damaging case of theft by iCraveTV that threatens the intellectual property, investments, and achievements of the US television and motion picture industry,' said Jack Valenti, president and chief executive office of the Motion Picture Association of America"... vs. the ICraveTV line "What we're doing is ethical, is legal, is moral, and the fact that somebody claims to the contrary does not change the true nature of it."

Ummmm..... the fact that you simply claim that it is legal, moral, and ethical doesn't make it so either. Apparently it is legal in Canada to rebroadcast under certain circumstanes... and if the TV streams never left Canada, I'd have nothing to say. But ICraveTV doesn't appear to limit it at all, so, whether or not they mean to, they are violating a lot of laws in a lot of countries.

DVD Case: Battle of the Basics
DVD & DeCSS
5/2/2000; 10:48:59 AM Jan 20, 2000: There's more issues flying around here then I feel safe in even explaining... just read the story, they're fairly clear in this case (which is why the EFF has mobilized).

Cynical prediction: Based on past experience, this case will settle while side-stepping as many issues as possible. People seem allergic to actually resolving anything.

The Aussies Went and Done It
Country Watch: Australia
5/2/2000; 10:47:25 AM Jan 19, 2000: Cultural decency laws are a sore spot for those worried about the future of the internet, and for good reason. They boil down to exceptions on free speech, and that worries people. It's fairly well understood that there must be exceptions on free speech, such as preventing libel and slander, but how fine the line between "decency" and true by the government... if indeed such a line exists.

On the plus side, the government seems fairly restrained about it; rather then taking a whole site down, it ordered specific pages down. Fairly enlightened, I think. I daresay the US government would have simply confiscated all equipment used in the manufacture and serving of the site.

Slo-Mo Justice Against Hate
Good Laws, Bad Uses
5/2/2000; 10:45:48 AM Jan 19, 2000: This is bad news. Yes, Ryan Wilson appears to be in violation of the law. But using the Fair Housing Act to shut down a web site? I think this case summarizes how law is practiced, and why this site is probably a futile endeavor; instead of saying "What laws has this man broken?", the question being asked is "How can we nail this guy we want to nail?" Right answer, wrong reason doesn't count for much in this arena; in fact, I'd rather let the guy go then add yet another law to the list of speech restrictors. Aren't current laws and interpretations good enough to get this guy (assuming that the Wired article is correct), without twisting things further?

Raising Creative Jerks
Internet/Weblog Culture
5/2/2000; 10:43:29 AM Jon Katz evokes a lot of different opinions from people; I tolerate him, there is a place for people who state what seems blindingly obvious. (That place probably isn't Slashdot, but that's another story.) His recent bit, Raising Creative Jerks, had an interesting quote: "Only certain groups are really free; everybody else has the appearance of freedom but if their views diverge from the norm they are assaulted, harassed, driven off." Point to ponder: Is this a form of ? My inclination is no... but it's an interesting thought.