BT et C

Tuesday, November 15, 2005


All stuff about Sony is going to move to Artists for File Sharing

Early MASOTY nomination

You will observe that the annual MASOTY awards just occurred in April of this year, and are not yet due. But I simply have to fire 'em up because a certain individual obviously has his eye on a prize:

Most Annoying Senator of the Year: Marc Pacheco, State Senator of Mass.

Memorable Quotes:

"So you're saying Citizens against Government Waste or Americans for Tax Reform are a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft? Is that what you're saying?" ( src)

This in response to a suggestion that since Microsoft provided substantial funding to these groups, one should look critically at their opposition to ODF.

Grover Norquist of ATR, personally received $60,000 from MS in 1999.( src). I have no info on more recent paymentsd, and leave it to the reader to decide how wholly owned they are.

"I am concerned that when I look at proprietary software companies bidding on work under the Open Document standard, if you do have an Open Office format, if you have an Open Office product, and it's an Open Office product which has GPL as one of the elements, then obviously in order to meet the standard then that would mean that proprietary company would have to release its code. That's what I understand. Now tell me where I'm wrong on that."

Let me help you, Marc: Where you're wrong is in getting your notion of what the GPL requires from Microsoft press releases. (e.g. "The GPL is designed to prevent commercial development of software distributed under the license. It does this largely by requiring licensees to make available, at little or no cost, all of the source code for any program that incorporates any amount of GPL code." -- -- which is outright false)

"Again, in keeping faith with what the Open Source community itself has put on the table every time they have approached me about being open, having see-through type of system, democratic process, from what I heard here today we've had far less than a democratic process."

I don't know if he scores a point here or not, because I can't speak about the exact process by which the ETRM was revised. I will say that this illustrates a kinda bad logical leap that I see all the time. Something like "you claim to be all about openness, but look at the front door of your HOUSE! It's closed!" i.e. the fallacy of ambiguous terminology.

It's possible that Kriss et. al. really did sorta conspire to get an ODF-friendly recommendation nto the ETRM. But it's also possible that this was called-for, because public discussion of stuff like this can get noisy and unreliable as people -- even dead people -- spout their usual FUD.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Flock Test

This is pretty cool (posting through Flock browser). More on this sort of thing later.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Quote of the Month

"We're not denying people access to the music. We're just trying to help them manage their access."
George Macdonald, director of sales and marketing
First 4 Internet (makers of the aforementioned XCP

OMG can you HELP me MANAGE all of this access that I have to all of this MUSIC?!?! It's overwhelming. There are 11 songs on this CD and I can access all of them! Help! Calgon, take me away!!!!!1

Do whatever it takes!!! PLEASE! Take over my computer if you have to! This ACCESS is just way WAY out of my control!

some credit is due

Thursday, November 10, 2005


Well, everyone is all abuzz ... guess I'm relatively slow on the uptake, but I'm going to throw in 2 cents:

Trey Anastasio: You are one of the most influential and versatile artists of your generation. I have eagerly anticipated your latest release for some time. As it turns out, I wasn't able to purchase the disc immediately ... and thank God. Now of course I will not. The good news is that Drawing Restraint 9, which I've also been awaiting, is RIAA-free


Mainstream media: Please remember this episode next time industry execs are spouting off about how they're just trying to make sure the artists get paid, etc. Ask them whether they're positive that the way to do this is to infect any computer that plays their CDs with a laughably insecure rootkit. Not that there's such thing as a secure rootkit.

General Public: Join me. Get off the RIAA's grid, permanently. Previously this was a proposal for people who had really unusual (i.e. rational) theories about the meaning of "intellectual property" and the origins of human creativity. Now it's a proposal for anyone who wants their computers to continue working even after they listen to music with them.

I've killed a couple hours reading up on this story 'cause it's so damn fascinating. It's like a catalog of all the reasons why people need to start making stands against this stuff.

Mark is (correctly) averse to the requirement that you add your email address to Sony's list in order to get their rootkit off your machine. This is because their privacy policy has the standard clause: "we may share the information we collect from you with our affiliates or send you e-mail promotions and special offers from reputable third parties in whose products and services we think you may have an interest. We may also share your information with reputable third-parties who may contact you directly" (Src). Which, of course, means you're on the Oh-Please-Call-Me list.

But wait! Sony says it's not so! "The wording on the web site is the standard Sony BMG corporate privacy policy that is put on all Sony web sites. Sony BMG does nothing with the customer service data (email addresses) other than use them to respond to the consumer."

Paraphrase: "Yes, we make you agree to allow us to do X, Y, and Z. But we aren't going to do those things. Trust us."

-You install a rootkit that phones home, then publically deny that you did this or that it does this.
-When pressed you say that it doesn't matter 'cause no one knows what a rootkit is anyway (Src).
-The uninstaller again fails to disclose what it is doing
-From what I hear, your website instructs the user how to grant herself admin privileges in XP, so that they can run your stuff. (Src -- ? Was mentioned in the Security Now broadcast)

Having therefore done four Very Dangerous things no one gave you permission to do, I am supposed to trust you not to do a moderately-annoying thing that I did give you permission to do?

Friday, November 04, 2005

The Question Is

If one of these stories just happens to you during your life, are you infringing.

PJ's writeup.


I just realized, duh. It'd be God who's infringing.