Biting the Hand that Beats You

How the entertainment industry and its congressional sock puppets are trying to wreck the Net and Linux along with it.

NOTE: I'll be at PC Forum in Arizona starting Sunday, March 24. Among the speakers I'll see (and perhaps meet) are RIAA President Hilary Rosen, FCC Chairman Michael Powell, Intel President & CEO Craig Barrett, Intel EVP Les Valdasz and Senator Maria Cantwell. If you have any tough questions or constructive suggestions you want me to bring to them (and others), write me at doc@ssc.com. I'll be there and on the Net wirelessly (if all goes well). Rosen, Cantwell and Powell are there on Sunday, Barrett's there on Monday. Also look for reports from the conference on the Linux Journal site. —DS

This morning, I went to the kitchen to graze among the leftovers and refuel on coffee. For company I turned on the radio and punched up my favorite station, SCAN. Since the radio happened to be on the AM band, its first stop was one of the half-dozen or so signals that carry Rush Limbaugh. Surprise: the big guy's panties were knotted around campaign finance reform. As usual, he was punching away at liberals, this time mocking their worries about the influence of “special interests”, which he called a liberal label for “anything that's critical of government.”

I nearly blew coffee out my nose. As interests go, none are quite so special as the entertainment industry. And, as it happened, I had been busy at my desk trying to find how many pieces of silver it took to turn Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings into the entertainment industry's sock puppet.

According to The Register, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, CBS (Viacom), NBC and Disney have each spent upwards of five figures over the last few years on Sen. Hollings. All told, individuals from various entertainment companies have contributed $287,534 since 1995. Not a huge sum, as soft money goes, but apparently enough to buy The Industry what it wanted. Which was—all together now—more government!

Last September, Senators Hollings and Ted Stevens together authored the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), which the EFF says (in that last link there) was mostly written by Walt Disney Corp. and would mandate digital rights management (DRM) in all new PCs and other consumer electric instruments for the conveyance of “content”.

Linux, which mostly runs on wide-open generic hardware, would be screwed, along with the Net and the whole computer industry, not to mention the economies that depend on them. This naturally fails to concern the protected inhabitants of “the regulatory environment”. In fact, these cattle think it's high time to regulate and bureaucratize technology's wild frontier—to their advantage, of course. That's why they bought Mr. Hollings.

For a better look at the invisible gland that works Hollings' mouth—and how it inveighs against the invisible hand of the real marketplace—here are some excerpts from the Senator's opening statement at the Hearing on Protecting Content in a Digital Age-Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition (yes, it was called that) on February 28. Fittingly, Hollings spoke in all-caps, which makes him easy to quote:

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RURAL AMERICA AND SOME UNDESERVED AREAS, THERE IS NO BROADBAND AVAILABILITY PROBLEM; WE HAVE A DEMAND PROBLEM. 80% CAN GET IT, ONLY 10-12% TAKE IT. MOST AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO PAY $50 A MONTH FOR FASTER ACCESS TO EMAIL. IF MORE CONTENT WERE AVAILABLE ONLINE, CONSUMERS WOULD COME.

Translation: if it were television they'd be all over it.

The reason most people don't want to spend $50 a month for broadband (a low estimate, no?) is that, like Sen. Hollings, they don't understand it. Two reasons: 1) The biggest OS vendor on Earth makes broadband as complicated as possible, and 2) The biggest ISP on Earth doesn't want its dial-up customers to understand it.

A few days ago I spent over an hour trying to get my sister-in-law's Windows machine to run the crapware that plays way too much of the stuff on the Web that requires broadband. The poor box kept insisting that it needed new versions of Flash, Windows Media Player and RealPlayer, all of which took forever to install and reinstall, involving multiple crashes along the way, with no useful assistance from anything on any of the vendors' sites.

Although it's true that AOL offers some kind of broadband, finding out about it is a whole 'nuther matter. Just for chuckles, go to the AOL site and look for the broadband link. Hint: Scroll down. It's in the lower right corner of the page.

Here's what it says:

AOL PlusAOL Offers High Speed DSLInstant On! Download up to 50 times faster. Free activation—click for info.

Click on the link and what do you get? “Welcome to America Online! Start your 1000 Hour FREE trial now! (for 45 days see details below)”. Not one word about “AOL Plus”, DSL, faster downloads or anything else. Is AOL ready to give up narrowband that pulls more money per household than basic cable?

THERE IS ALMOST NO LEGAL, HIGH QUALITY CONTENT AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.

Translation: Nothing in the galaxy of goods on the Net even begins to count. Not the on-line journals, not the music, not the good information put up by governments, individuals and businesses all over the world—including the very testimony we're quoting here. (It's there in .pdf)

WHY? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SINGLE, OPEN STANDARD PROVIDING TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION TO COPYRIGHTED PRODUCTS TO GIVE CONTENT OWNERS THE CONFIDENCE TO PLACE THEIR PREMIUM CONTENT ONLINE.

Translation: the only content worthy of the name, or the adjective “premium”, comes from big-name copyright holders.

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR DIGITAL TELEVISION, WHERE PIRACY DETERS PROGRAMMERS FROM PUTTING DIGITAL CONTENT OVER THE AIRWAVES.

True for the supply side. But what about demand? Where are the millions of viewers, waving their remote controls in the air demanding to see Friends on their Gateways?

Earth to Fritz: Television isn't in the business of selling “content” to viewers. What they call “content” is just fertilizer for potatoes whose eyes are sold to advertisers. Want to know why the potatoes don't miss fertilizer on their computers? Listen to the Mute button, dude. On computers they're not “consumers” any more. They're customers, and they're not buying stuff that worthless even when it's free.

...ABSENT STRONG TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTIONS LAYERED ON TOP OF THE COPYRIGHT LAWS, IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE LAW AS IT EXISTS. YOU CAN SEE TODAY. THOSE AMERICANS WHO DO ACCESS TOP NOTCH CONTENT ONLINE ARE OFTEN STEALING IT. EVERY WEEK A MAJOR MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON THE THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL PIRATED WORKS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR COPYING AND REDISTRIBUTION ONLINE. ACADEMY AWARD WINNING MOTION PICTURES, PLATINUM RECORDS, AND EMMY AWARD WINNING TELEVISION SHOWS - ALL FOR FREE, ALL ILLEGAL.

Here's a good example: Steven Levy, writing in Newsweek, published on the Web by MSNBC, “The Customer is Always Wrong: Music and film moguls, and a few senators, think fans are thieves and want to cripple technology to stop you from making copies”.

WHEN CONGRESS SITS IDLY BY IN THE FACE OF THESE ACTIVITIES, WE ESSENTIALLY SANCTION THE INTERNET AS A HAVEN FOR THIEVERY. THIS PROBLEM CANNOT BE MINIMIZED. PIRACY IS GROWING EXPONENTIALLY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND AMONG TECH SAVVY CONSUMERS. OVER TEN MILLION PEOPLE USE FILE SHARING SITES ON THE INTERNET TO DOWNLOAD MOVIES, SONGS, AND TV SHOWS, WITH NO PENALTY. SUCH AN ATMOSPHERE CONTRIBUTES TO THE STUDIOS AND RECORD LABELS' RELUCTANCE TO PLACE THEIR DIGITAL CONTENT ON THE INTERNET OR OVER THE AIRWAVES.

Translation: Rather than a real marketplace where businesses have enormous opportunities to innovate and interact directly with customers, the Net is just as a den of thieves. Nice “thinking”, Fritz.

The Net's only defender at the Hollings hearings was Intel EVP Les Vadasz, also president of Intel Capital, the VC arm of the chip giant. Here's some of what he had to say:

The IT industry is all about innovation; we embrace and champion technological progress. The content community, by contrast, has historically feared technology—from the advent of sound recording, to the development of the VCR, the DVD, the PC and other digital devices. Yet every advancement in technology has proven to be a major growth catalyst for the studios. Videocassette rental and sales totaled about 11 billion dollars last year, exceeding box office receipts by some 2+ billion dollars. This is the device once referred to by Jack Valenti as the “Boston Strangler” of the film industry. Other “attackers” of the film industry include the DVD, which added another 5.9 billion to studio receipts in the last year.

...Any attempt to inject a regulatory process into the design of our products will irreparably damage the high-tech industry: it will substantially retard innovation, investment in new technologies, and will reduce the usefulness of our products to consumers.

He goes on to describe the comparative sizes of the IT and entertainment industries ($600 billion vs. $35 billion) and the role freedom from government interference has played in IT industrial growth. Then he adds:

This dynamic of innovation would be choked by any attempt to regulate the design of products solely for the benefit of one industry. Designing products through a regulatory process, as some studios have advocated, would inject political influences into technology development in very destructive ways. Investment and innovation will both suffer, as a fear of entanglement with government processes will have a chilling effect on investors and subject new ideas to “reg review”.

He concludes:

I would like to leave this Committee with the following thoughts:

  • First, listen to the consumer—he is paying the bill for all of our products. Consumers want flexibility and power in digital products and robust applications.

  • Second, do not tinker with the IT industry by trying to regulate the development of our—technologies. Irreparable damage will result—the pace of innovation, productivity growth, and our industry's contribution to economic growth will all decline.

  • Third, do not buy into a view of content protection that will deprive consumers of the ability to get the full benefit of the capabilities of the PC by neutering it—when it comes to content management—to be nothing more than a more expensive version of a “dumb” DVD player.

Think about how many of the Web's servers are running on Linux, and you start to get the penguin perspective on the matter—and on Intel's relationship to the popularity of Linux. Then consider the compute power behind some of the private web services we take for granted, such as Google's, which runs on more than 10,000 boxes with both Linux and Intel inside, all searching through more than two billion pages of that worthless content Sen. Hollings talked about.

Then go back and ask what's so special about Disney's interest in Sen. Hollings.

Simply put, Disney is interested in maintaining the powerlessness of The Consumer. Michael Eisner and his congressional puppets want to dismantle the Net for one single reason: it's a platform for markets where demand has just as much power as supply.

What's really scary for Mr. Eisner isn't The Consumer paying the bill for Intel's products. It's the fact that the Net makes The Consumer into a real, in-your-face customer.

A year ago in Florida I spoke at a meeting of GE Global eXchange Services, a B2B e-commerce network that processes over a trillion dollars in transactions for more than 100,000 trading partners all over the world. Harvey Seegers, the President and CEO of GEX, told me he agreed with me that “the Net creates a balance of power between supply and demand”. As a commanding supplier, GE used to be in charge of its customer relationships. “Not anymore”, he said. “It's a whole new world.” It was clear at the meeting that GEX was busy doing everything it could to cope with operating in a new kind of marketplace. And they were excited about it.

But not Disney. Not News Corp. These guys are having trouble making the transition from potato farming to whatever comes next. They have no idea how to do business with resourceful human beings rather than passive vegetables. So they run to government for protection.

True, a lot of customers are still in the dark about OS choices other than Microsoft and about ISP choices other than AOL. But when it comes to the supply side of the entertainment production and distribution business, customers have seen the dark at the end of the tunnel. Thanks to the Net, they've turned toward the light that comes from each other.

Let's look at what they've done:

  • Napster and its successors are the listeners' workaround of the failed radio industry, which replaced trusted music connoisseurs with payola-driven robots that serve only as freebie machines for the record industry's pop music factories.

  • Internet radio is one way music connoisseurs are working around the same problem from the supply side.

  • DeCSS is the people's workaround of the consumer electronics cartel, which doesn't know how to cope with an operating system that isn't owned by a vendor.

Other workarounds are bound to follow, over and over, until the entertainment industry starts serving fully empowered customers or gets replaced by something that will. Protective legislation will only make the process happen faster. But that's no reason to just let nature take its course. The Net is a geek-built world. We can't passively tolerate insults to its ecosystem.

In the last SuitWatch newsletter, I raised a warning about another regulatory time bomb; the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) report, which seeks to regulate internet radio (webcasting) as an entertainment performance venue in the form of a file downloading service (in which each file streamed can be charged at up to .14 cents a piece, retroactively to 1995).

As it turns out, the deadline for filing comments on CARP has been extended to April 5.

So now is the time to call and/or write your elected representatives. Let them know that you listen to and value Internet radio. Tell them you don't want it taxed at the source, that you don't want it regulated out of business before it even has a chance to become one.

For more on the subject, visit any or all of these sites:

Let's show these creeps how markets really work.

And when we're done with that, let's show them how democracy works, too.

Doc Searls (doc@ssc.com) is Senior Editor of Linux Journal. He is also co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto.

______________________

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you didn't vote Libertarian, don't complain.

Anonymous's picture

If you voted for a Democrat or Republican, then don't bother complaining about this "infringement".

You Asked For It.

Ok, one Republican: Ron Paul of Texas. His constituents get to complain.

Bob-

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

I think this sums up the industry attitude quite nicely, courtesy of Michael Eisner.
Personally, this made me nauseous ...

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Doc,

What you speak is 100% down to earth common sense. I couldn't have possibly said it better myself. I have nothing at all to contribute to what you already have to say. This topic has been discussed to death already and all the implications are pretty obvious. It just takes more doing and lobbying at this point. Nonetheless, it's great and essential to keep the channels open, as you're doing now.

I wish you best of luck and godspeed. I sincerely hope you can bring down the ice cold water of reality on some people's heads.

Turning everyone into a criminal with a guilty conscience, without thoroughly punishing and prosecuting every crime, is the best way to keep your public enslaved. That's what the entertainment industry wants: control. They don't want a perfectly crime-free world or respect for copyright or none of that crap. They want control, plain and simple, at all costs, damned be copyright!

They want a constitutional right to make profits. Too bad that 80% of all new business ventures that fail can't buy themselves some laws to enshrine their "right to make profit" by the government.

I am just as angry as you Doc, and really, more than talking, I'd like to spit in the faces of these "entertainment industry" people. I just don't think that a rational conversation is possible. I really hope I am wrong.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

As I understand it "Campaign Finance Reform" would not have stopped Sen. Hollings from getting all that hard money from those contributors. In fact hard money contributions to candidates can increase to partially offset soft money banning to parties. I agree with everything written in "Biting the Hand That Feeds You" except what appears to be a simplistic notion that Limbaugh's argument against what passed as CFR is somehow refuted here.

Linux users can become a "Special Interest" in the Limbaugh sense by being critical of government attempts to do this kind of overregulation, but CFR is meant to stifle issue advocacy ads in the last month of an election cycle, so perhaps Searls should rethink what looks like a blanket opposition to the Limbaugh Doctrine on this issue.

Is it possible that Linux advocates spend a little too much time preaching to the choir? Maybe more time and space needs to be grabbed in full public view to advance the cause of openness. Intel's Vadasz's testimony is a good start, but why not some good issue advocacy ads from (and not just TO) the community of Linux?

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

We have a government who is

FOR THE CORPORATION,

BY THE CORPORATION,

GOD BLESS THE CORPORATION

and GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH.

And screw all the rest of U.S.

These people seem to forget who votes them into office

everytime one of these sleezy issues comes up.

You'd think our congress was made up of 100% asians

by the way they SPAM our Bill of Rights and Constitution

every day for a few measly bucks of campaign contributions.

They are insatiable prostitues for evil in the hand of Holly

Wood.

This is what fuels the propaganda machine for the youth

of the Middle East to motivate them to attend U.S. Trade

Schools on a very special scholorship.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

scumbag's picture

Calling congress prostitutes besmirches the legitimate profession of prostitution.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

scumbag's picture

Face it Doc, you're just a free loading, free love guy who is still hung over from the sixties. Since free love is dangerous these days, you've moved on to free software and ripped off music.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

It's May 2003, and now we all see that it is more than just protecting copy rights. We are losing control of our PC's to the corporate giants. The PC's in our homes will not let us visit any site not on the TCPA list of approved sites. TCPA will take away your choice of software, and hardware for your PC. Corporate giants will dictate what you can have. Thanks, Sen. Hollings!

TCPA will succeed in the Internet where Dictators have failed. It will silence opinions; and kill ideas. It won't just be corporations with the power to reach into your computer and delete files and disable software. Governments will use this power to learn of dissidents' names. To kill opposition, etc.

FACISM on the Internet. That is what it all boils down to. Thanks, Disney!

CBDTPA considered worthless even for its stated goal

Anonymous's picture

Senator Hollings claims his bill is needed to promote broadband and HDTV.

Ignoring for a moment the multiple threats that the CDBTPA poses to the Constitution, the Net is in no shape to act as a carrier for HDTV.

DVD delivers up to 10 Megabits/sec, *reliably*, and it doesn't have the bandwidth required for HDTV. A HD-DVD player would probably need the capability to deliver 40 Megabits/sec, minimum.

DSL and cable modems deliver as little as 1/3 of one Megabit/sec. There is an article on SlashDot now about a cable modem provider clamping down on heavy bandwidth users (which HDTV addicts would most definitely be).

Internet-based "HDTV" broadcasts would S-U-C-K!!!

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Hey, you bozo "scumbag" (name says it all :) ) , Government's "Power, Control & Authority" is being shoved down our throats.. stoopid

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

scumbag's picture

At least I have a name, Anonymous aka "spineless coward".

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

"The reason most people don't want to spend $50 a month for broadband (a low estimate, no?) is that, like Sen. Hollings, they don't understand it. Two reasons: 1) The biggest OS vendor on Earth makes broadband as complicated as possible, and 2) The biggest ISP on Earth doesn't want its dial-up customers to understand it. "

Still not right. AOL does indeed offer broadband over Time Warner's cable systems (at least here in Central Ohio). The real reason most people don't want to spend $50 a month on broadband is because they don't want to spend $50 a month. Most of them are NOT downloading many megabytes worth of files. The argument that Big Media puts forth about the lack of content demonstrates that their employees were never required to take a logic course. There's plenty of content out there - it just doesn't hog enough bandwidth to be an inconvenience to dial-up users. They are half-right then - there's not enough bandwidth-hogging content to make users care.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Dear Doc,

Part of the entertainment industry indeed fears computers. I can even give you another worked out example why the music industry is scared.

What does it take to record music ? With current technology not much. Music is something that is created by people and which can nowadays be easily recorded with much smaller investments than was previously necessary.

If you want to have a good music product, then two people will matter and cost you money : the producer, which will guide your style, and the technician/mixer, who is responsible for the quality of your sound. If you are talented enough, you do not need these people. An investment in your instruments, digital recording music cards for a PC and a good music editing package can get you a long ride thses days.

For copyright, you also need someone who can transcribe music. You can then deposit this with an independent agency (SABAM here in Belgium, BUMA/STEMRA in Holland) which can take care of collecting the fees.

Now, here comes something which is possible, but which does not exist yet. You should be able to download music from a server, which contains the musicians information and which generates payment data for the rights agency. I do not think that people would object to paying (a small fee) for music, especially if the server gives excellent uptimes and download speeds. Maybe one could work with subscriptions. Then the information about the downloads and the payments could go to the rights agency and the musician. This way the musician has also proof that het gets his fair share.

If one wants to sell music on CD's, there are enough small labels who know to do business, marketing and distribution for a label.

In effect, the computer revolution makes again small businesses worthwhile. In some cases it provides the technology to eliminate third parties which do not have anything to do with the product, but which nevertheless leach on it.

Jurgen

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Auto-Generated Muzak

Anonymous's picture

Let the machines do the composition? Listening to most of what's out there now, I thought that music was already being written by robots - especially in Nashville and LA. Unless it's programmed by someone of the calibre of Eno or William Orbit, the results are going to be truely horrendous.

The point about musicians having an easily audited royalty base is interesting. Historically, the major labels have made a lot of money out of cheating musicians with dodgy accounting practices. Some of the biggest names in the business have been cheaterd out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the effect on smaller artists can be disastrous. (Who are the pirates in entertainment?) This seems like another excellent reason for the large corporates to oppose freeing artists to produce and market themselves, or even simply manage their own revenue. Sure, there will be 'slippage' and unpaid for reproduction, but probably on a much lesser scale than what, as an example, MCA routinely practised in the 1980s. The difference from the companies' point of view is that now they are not the beneficiaries of the theft.

Maybe letting computers write the music and taking human composers and performers out of the loop would suit Disney, Universal, etc just fine.

Re: Auto-Generated Muzak

Anonymous's picture


Listening to most of what's out there now, I thought that music was already being written by robots - especially in Nashville and LA.

Oddly, some people like it enough to pay.

Unless it's programmed by someone of the calibre of Eno or William Orbit, the results are going to be truely horrendous.

You're presupposing that every attempt would result in unlistenable crap. Maybe most of it would, but in reality, the result would be based on the quality of the program and ability of the user. if a piece happens to be listenable, it could be released under a free license to be improved by better musicians. A rating system could inform downloaders what to expect. Few professionals would be free to become involved in such a project, but it wouldn't matter. The vast majority are amateurs, and in many cases highly trained.

At the moment the idea sounds farfetched, but humanity will someday be able to generate high quality music and (almost) completely computer-generated movies just by pushing a few buttons. I have no doubt about that. It is my guess that the commercial studios would wish to prevent such technology from ever becoming publically accessible. They would use it themselves if it were profitable.

Some alternative to the current system of content creation is strongly needed. It seems obvious that leaving the commercial studios in control, with the rest of us begging them and their congressional chattel not to hobble or take away our computers, is not a good situation.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Doc, Excellent work.

I'd like to point out though, that while the entertainment industry is clearly a special interest with a definite set of goals, so is the open source community. The fact that this community has not been as successful in gaining the ear (or pockets) of our government as Disney has, is at least partly the fault of the open source community.

The effect of the current campaign finance law changes is that as a "special interest group" the open source community will be prohibited from placing media adds stating it's position about Hollings or others of his bent, any time within 90 days of his election. Of course, all media people will be free to editorialize openly about Hollings and his wonderful protection of intellectual property.

As you have correctly pointed out, this intrusion of government regulation is serious, and people need to be educated about its consequences. It's unfortunate that because of the new regulations of campaign finance, only the estabished media, and wealthy candidates will be able to widely publish their issues. Granted, pouring tons of money into campaigns and add generation isn't a perfect way of getting a message out, but at least it is a way. It is a way that is now gone.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

As a non-American I wonder how this would fly

everywhere else in the world who would

enforce what they want to do? ISP? Govt?

Nobody will buy crippled pcs that limit what

folks want to do in there home and it would

be a disaster for any pc vendor to go there.

I don't use Morpheus Kazza or download any

movies but I won't accept anyone telling me

what I can install or not install on my pc in

regards to hardware and personal choice

with software. It's corporate suicide for all

the companies pushing regulation and they

ought to re-think messing with consumers

who book there vacations to Disney World,

buy there expensive cd's and computers

and products.

"The Rest Of The World"...

Anonymous's picture

The other governments of the world will welcome it with open arms, and open checkbooks.

The "American" government has its basis in *not* having many powers to control the actions of its citizens. This is not true of other governments, who mostly have their basis in controling their citizens as much as possible until/unless the citizens don't put up with it any more.

"Content Control" will thrill authoritarian states. Being able to "flip the switch to off" by default, and then only letting people turn it on for approved content, is a bureaucrats dream come true.

The Rest Of The World is already far more accustomed to being checked, tracked, and controlled than "americans" are. The poor and huddled masses are glad to get any content, and I believe they don't care that it's being censored because they have been taught by their government that only through government are such services made available to them at all.

Bob-

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Damn right. I can't look at anything Disney now without feeling a distinct sense of loathing.

I didn't make a conscious decision to 'boycott Disney' but hard to feel positively towards something one loathes.

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Dear Senator Hollings et al.,

Please go back to your history books and reread the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. Please retake your US History 101 class, and please, PLEASE, read Bill Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Too many parallels.

Rob Mandel

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Re: Biting the Hand that Beats You

Anonymous's picture

Sorry for being such a skepticist, but I don't think auto generating interesting scripts and scores ever will be possible. Maybe in the next millenium.

Regards

//Jan Persson

Webinar
One Click, Universal Protection: Implementing Centralized Security Policies on Linux Systems

As Linux continues to play an ever increasing role in corporate data centers and institutions, ensuring the integrity and protection of these systems must be a priority. With 60% of the world's websites and an increasing share of organization's mission-critical workloads running on Linux, failing to stop malware and other advanced threats on Linux can increasingly impact an organization's reputation and bottom line.

Learn More

Sponsored by Bit9

Webinar
Linux Backup and Recovery Webinar

Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.

In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.

Learn More

Sponsored by Storix