[ale] comcast static IP?

[Jim Popovitch]

On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 16:24 -0500, Jason Day wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:26:14PM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:01 -0600, Preston Boyington wrote:
> > > I think he is talking about the DMCA.  Especially DeCSS and probably 
> > > UNIVERSAL CITY v REIMERDES:
> > 
> > I'm sure he was.  We all know the ins-outs of this case, so it is easy
> > for us to see through it.  Why some of those same people are blinded by
> > the issues surrounding the number of devices in their home is beyond me.
> 
> If you knew I was talking about the DMCA, why did you pretend ignorance?

I didn't, and frankly still don't, know what you are talking about.  You
whole point to date has been that you mostly agree with me in principal,
but you prefer to address it by changing the contract terms of a
commercial company, something that you seem to think is law.

> Are you trolling or being deliberately obtuse?  It's doesn't matter
> whether we can "see through" the DeCSS case; it is still illegal.  

You shouldn't do it then.  I will, and I don't see myself getting into
any trouble over it.  YMMV.

> Yes, it's an absurd law.  Yes, it's unfair.  Yes, almost all linux
> distributions are capable of playing DVDs, and no, you're probably not
> going to be arrested for watching the matrix on your linux laptop.  I,
> however, am still offended that it is illegal to do so, and ignoring it
> won't make it go away.

Yes it will.  That's the way most laws go away.  If it doesn't who
cares?

> > Seriously, does the power company care if you have more than 2
> > microwaves?  LOL!
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Many broadband ISPs include a clause in their terms of service stating
> that you must pay an extra fee if you want to connect more than one
> computer to the broadband connection.  

I don't see that in my contract.  YMMV.  Even if you do see that, it
doesn't make it enforceable.  

> If you use a NAT router with one of these ISPs, and do not pay the extra
> charge, then like Chris said
> it's the same as downloading copyrighted files from kazaa.  

No it is not.  Use of Kazaa in no way implies illegal distribution of
copyrighted material.  I don't use Kazaa, but if you do and you don't
feel comfortable: Don't.  Downloading copyrighted files, that you don't
have permission to posses, is clearly illegal and well established in
law.  The cable company saying I can't do something is completely
different. 

> Yes, it is ridiculous to put such a clause in the terms of service, 
> and no, I don't agree with it.  But there it is.  Ignoring it almost 
> certainly won't get you in trouble, but it won't make it go away either.

So what do you propose to do?  Abide by something you don't agree with
and you know can't be enforced, and is by all accounts probably not
valid?  Give me a break. Don't let others, even cable companies, push
you around like that.

> Now, you can try and deliberately misunderstand that if you want to, and
> possibly even reply with some more analogies that don't apply but do a
> good job of clouding the issue, but I'm done taking the bait.

LOL!  You are the one clouding the issue with your "I know it's not
right, nor is it enforcable, but I think it's still valid" approach.

-Jim P.