Computers: August 2004 Archives

About Ruslan Meet People - ICQ.com

Okay...so I get into work today after staying up until 2am trying to get my work laptop backed up so that they can image it today, due to some fucked up issue with Outlook 2003 not connecting to the server anymore, and as soon as I get in and fire up Trillian, I get an error - Cannot log in to ICQ. Failed Password.

No biggie, I think - maybe AOL did some toying with the backend code, as they're want to do on occasion. So I fire up my copy of ICQ Lite. Again - "Failed Password".

Since I can't really remember which of the 8-10 passwords that I use commonly is associated with my ICQ account, I go to their password recovery site. Type in a few email addresses that it might like, and get nothing in return. Hrmmm...that's strange.

So...I click on the "view your details" link to find out what's up. Sure enough, as soon as it opens up, there's a new name on the account, "Ruslan". Nothing else has changed - s/he's still associated with the U of WA and Alpha Phi Omega, but the name's completely changed, as I would assume are the password and email addresses associated with the account.

So, I put in a ticket with little expectation that anyone will ACTUALLY be able to do anything (it is a free service, after all, and you get what you pay for)...so there goes my six-digit number, that I've had since 1994 or so.

So if you see someone on ICQ signed in under UIN #897161, feel free to fuck with them something furious.

Asshole.

Boing Boing: EFF wins Grokster! Software doesn't have to be easy for Hollywood to wiretap!

Looks like the EFF has struck a strong blow against the RIAA and their ham-handed tactics against file-sharing networks and their users. In upholding the summary judgment ordered in favor of the EFF at the District Court level, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

"The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners’ immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context."

Assuming that the 9th Circuit doesn't bat its usual percentage at the Supreme Court on appeal, this ruling appears to make decentralized file-sharing systems immune from vicarious liability. Should be interesting if this gets picked up for certiorari.

Check out the opinion...