Slashdot Mirror

WTF? Colombia is NTSC just like most of the Americas. Perhaps you were thinking of Brazil? http://www.execulink.com/~impact/world_television_standards2.htm

Being in Southern Ontario, I'd highly recommend you check out any local ISP. The two that come to mind are http://www.sentex.net/ and http://www.execulink.com/. I've had nothing but golden experience with the former, and have no experience with the latter. Why not Bell? Largely due to upstream connections. It's a Sympatico policy to do no private peering whatsoever, so your latency is more dictated by their upstream providers than by anything else. Though Sentex is relatively small, they're a pretty active member of http://www.torix.net/, and you can really notice a difference -- especially when it comes to something like streaming CBC. The other great part? Sentex doesn't just bow to DMCA takedown notices. Ignoring the fact that they're Canadian, and the DMCA is an American law, they do the Right Thing^tm: they respond to the takedown notice, requesting verification and validation. And, as we all know, nobody ever responds to the DMCA response, so there's never any real action as a result of it.

My life improved a great deal when I discovered this little system tray item:
http://members.execulink.com/~pjones/toggler/index .htm
The Toggler! You set the number of seconds that you need to hold down CAPS LOCK before it becomes active - and no more accidental Caps LOCKING EVER AGAIN.

It has other great uses too, like disabling the windows key to avoid that 'crash to desktop' feel in the middle of a game...

Seems a bit risky, considering their close proximity to the US and the tendency for US to invade other countries.

The already tried that and failed.

Seriously though. They'll just close the border to everything but our beer. I found a review of the differences between Canadian beer and other beers. Done by two resident experts.

Like the submitter, I never use Caps Lock. Found a program to disable it. Toggler. I'm not the author, but I was a user whilest I ran a Windows box.

Your reasoning about unconstitutional laws

My "reasoning about unconstitutional laws" is that the supreme court has explicitly, repeatedly, and consistantly ruled that congress does not have the power to pass an unconstitutional law.

Congress was CREATED by the constituion and they do not have the power to change it*. The constitution is a level of law above Congress and they are constrained to operate within that law. Any unconstitional law is void. Period.

*Congress has a mechanism to propose changes to the constitution, but they do not have to power to apply those changes.

If the DMCA is indeed unconstitutional then I cannot see any way to argue it is not void.

what constitutes a single law anyway?
I always thought that only the unconstitutional sections were voided

Right, a bill can be written in a modular manner. Courts can strike down one or more sections of a bill and leave others in place. Courts cannot alter the text so they cannot repair broken dependancies. Any broken dependancies would be struck as well.

The DMCA contains many unrelated sections. Most of the sections are fine so no one mentions them. Those sections would remain intact. Perhaps I should have clarified that earlier. When I said an unconstitutionality would force them to strike down the DMCA I was reffering to the entire circumvention section and only the circumvention section.

I have a couple of CDs with backwards satanic messages. I have to admit it's fun to check, but I wouldn't break down and cry if I didn't have that right.

I don't think that answers my question. I know you "wouldn't break down and cry", but maybe our religious fruitloop will. I asked if you felt justified in imprisioning him. I may get a kick out of torturing him with evil messages, but we have no right to imprison him for being a harmless fruitloop. We only imprision people who cause harm.

I don't think it's more wrong to violate copyright to make a profit than to swap tracks with strangers.

I could show non-commercial use is less harmful, but I think you are interpreting many of my points in a false boolean manner. Eliminating circumvention law DOES NOT equal legalizing all non-commercial use. The argument is over circumvention law. I was saying that copyright could survive perfectly fine even if P2P and all non-commercial use were perfectly legal. I meant to disproove circumvention law is "required". It is perfectly possible to eliminate cirumvention law AND for swaping tracks with strangers to be illegal. It's called copyright law.

The very fact that there is an amendment means that constitutions are not infallible.

I never claimed it was infallible, but any flaws in the constitution can only be corrected with an amendment. It is impossible to alter the constitution with a law.

the foresight to determine how copyright should work now.

But circumvention is not copyright. That's why it runs into all sorts of problems. Circumvention law is a change that attempts to REPLACE copyright protection. It replaces a carefully crafted and debugged system with a new and severely broken system. If copyright law had interfered with libraries and fair use it never would have been allowed to exist in the first place.

$20 billion industry and reduce it to a $10 million industry

Baloney. We could repeal copyright entirely and music would still be FAR more than a $10 million industry. The RIAA can survive perfectly fine under current copyright law without circumvention law (unless the idiots self destruct).

Are you familiar with the MPAA's dire threats about VCRs in the 1980's? They said VCR's were going to destroy hollywood. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! They actually had a judge declare all VCR manufacturers guilty of contributory infringement until the supreme court overturned the case. When they failed to make VCR's illegal they tried to get congress to hand them a $1 tax on every tape and a $50 tax on every VCR. Free money for the MPAA. The RIAA has GOTTEN a tax on blank media in some countries, and they have gotten a tax on some blank media in the US. "It's for the starving artists" they chanted, yet records prove they never paid a dime of it to artists.

The MPAA currently makes more money on video tapes than they do on theaters. If the RIAA gets their act together they can wind up making more money on the internet than they do on CD's - and WITHOUT circumvention law. All they need is standard copyright law.

They do that[radio] as a form of advertising. No one is going to advertise if they don't have a product.

The internet doesn't magicly make their product vanish. Slashdot recently linked to an article on the National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and their position with regard to the RIAA? They explain exactly how the RIAA use the internet rather than trying to fight it. They also discuss how effective the internet "advertizing" is at generating sales.

TIVO, on the other hand, has the potential to destroy broadcast TV

No, just like any technology it has the potential to bring CHANGE. Just because some people don't like a technology doesn't mean it is destructive. And just like the MPAA and the VCR, the people currently claiming that the sky is falling will probably be the same ones who will profit the most when they adapt and take advantage of the new technology.

you can't go around making major changes[in the law] every time you spot an exception.

What major changes? When a bad guy does something that should be a crime we pass a new law. When a "law" is unconstitutional it is void and congress may or may-not pass a replacement.

That is the current US system. Either you missunderstood what I said, or you missunderstand our current legal system. I have no idea which. I guess it's possible I have a serious missunderstanding of our legal system. If so, please explain it to me :)

the general public have indicated that they want P2P to be legal...A tyranny of the majority

This is gonna get messy, read carefully :)

A post earlier you asked if I thought "laws should not be based on what people need (and want) to do". I didn't think that was a fair assessment of my position so I pointed out "The general public has indicated they want P2P to be legal". But it is wants and needs and I acknowlged that was correct with my next sentence "Of course then there's the consideration of what the public needs". I didn't specify what the public needs because my argument has nothing to do with copyright law. We can increase it, decrease it, or leave it the same. Instead I said "The public does not need DRM". That was supposed to be the conclusion supporting my position, the public does not want or need DRM therefore the public does not want or need circumvention laws.

If there was a "copyright bargain", the public certainly hasn't held up its end.

Sure it has, unless you think there is a SHORTAGE of music/books/movies/TV/art/etc. The copyright bargain was to give creators an incentive to create and share thier creations. Unless I'm hallucinating we are virtually drowning in an overabundance of ALL of the above. Creators have plenty of incentive to create and bring their creations to the public. It is the publishing industry that is seeking to abuse the system.

>The purpose of copyright is to benefit the public.

theoretically the purpose of capitalism...communism as well. I think that oft cited argument is a bit oversimplified.

The point is that the copyright industry is asking for something new. Giving it to them requires a taking from the public. The only acceptable motivation for that change is to benefit the public.

It is exactly like the last 20 year extention on copyright. It was a taking from the public and a pure gift(patronage) to copyright holders. Note that it only benefits publishers holding the copyrights of DEAD authors and artists. 70-years dead authors. The public does not benefit therefore there was no valid motivation for it. Patronage is an abuse of the legal system.

I don't see that as rationale for keeping them poor and starving.

Most artists have always been "poor and starving" simply because there has always been glut of artists producing stuff no one wants. No amount of protection can help them, so lets just look at marketable artists.

I see no indication that marketable artists are about to become poor and starving. One of the primary driving forces behind P2P is the fact that the RIAA has refused to provide an online market for their goods (the other big reason is porn chuckle). If the RIAA had half a brain they would have been the first ones to come up with the idea of distributing on the internet. Napster hit the net in 1998 - five years ago. There is absolutely NO excuse for them NOT to have had online music sales up and running within a year after they got hit over the head with the idea.

Now that's they've sat on their asses for the last five years they are going to have a very uphill battle establishing themselves in an online market. They can still do it with effort. They have to actually offer a product people want. Their current offerings are tripply-flawed (or worse). First of all no one wants to buy dysfunctional DRM files. Secondly they have to offer music the market actually wants. They are currently withholding all of the popular music because they don't want to compete with their offline sales. And third they have to have sane pricing. Buying a downloads should be cheaper than buying packaged media from a retail outlet.

The RIAA CHOSE to abandon the online market. That certainly doesn't mean the online market cannot exist or that it will cause artists to starve.

No, the intent to illegally decrypt music. The algorithm contains this intent, regardless of how it is used.

I don't understand. I don't see how a tool or an algorithm can contain an intent. Do you mean it contains (has) a certain functionality? A knife has the functionality to stab someone, and it still has that functionality if I use it to make a sandwich.

[profiles] Of course, any Internet survey is going to have some bias.

It was done scientificly. (Or at least as close as a bunch of shrinks can get to doing science, grin.) "tested on a national sample (USA) consisting of 3,200 respondents. These were randomly assigned using census information." source

I can't imagine that an EXF would use logic in the same way as me.

I had similar reaction originally, but I think I understand it now. Everyone has the ability to express both I and E, S and N, F and T. We have primary mode 000 we are strong in and a secondary 111 mode we are weaker in. The primary skills get linked together as a unit and our secondary skills get linked. When an EXF wants to (T)hink they focus (I)nward. When an IXT (F)eels they turn outward(E) to find it.

It might be interesting to try to actively break the link, though I'm not quite sure how to go about it. I can understand and explain the meanings of INX ESX IXT EXF XNT and XSF (those are the links I have) but I find it difficult to conceive how the following types work: ISX ENX IXF EXT XST and XNF (contrary to my links).

When a 111X pair get together their primary/secondary modes match up. Each can clearly see and understand the primary strength of the other. In a 1110 relation each person's strong side tends to catalyse and enhance the other's weak side. They can act as a role model and guide. When an ESFP uses logic it is INT and I can see the logic with crystal clarity and my feedback is exactly right to guide them to the conclusion they were looking for. My presence increases their confidence in their own thinking skills. As an INT I'm weak with people and social situations, but when I'm with an ESFP they are an expert at reading my clumsy social skills. They may understand what I am trying to say or do even better than I do. Their presence and feedback makes me much more comfortable and confident in social situations.

In 1111 relations each person's strong side is an expert at catching and correcting errors by the other's weak side. It can be very useful because each person can rely on and benefit from the other's strength. The problem is that P's and J's have diferent motivations, they make different plans, they come to different conclusions based on the same information. At first each is more than happy to make minor compromises to get the other's expert aid on their weak side. It only works so long as each person is willing to yeild total control over matters on their weak side. It leaves each weak side neglected rather than developing and supporting it. Eventually they each start demanding "fairness and compromise" for things on their weak side. When these conflicts arise you have one person's strength pressing directly down on the other's weak side. The person in the weak position knows four things (1) he is 100% right and justified (2) the situation is massively unfair (3) he can never win the argument because (4) the person on the strong side is ALSO 100% right. It gets extremely frustrating. You're both right, you're both wrong, you're both being unfair and unreasonable, the fight was provoked by some really stupid and minor thing. The REAL reason for the fight wasn't the thing itself, it was a general imbalance in the relationship. The imbalance goes in opposite directions in opposite areas.

Cool, explaining this stuff to you gave me several "Aha" experiences helping me to understand it better :) It also helped understand a 3 year relationship I had with an ESFJ. Our fights were bizzare. I have a good relationship with a differnt ESFJ, but I think the reason it works well it is that we only get together a few days each year, chuckle.

-

Check the link in my original post ... it's another $10/month for the modem (or $250 or so if you want to buy it outright) which I didn't think to account for since I can only get dialup where I live in Ontario. In past months, it was something like $19.95/month from execustink but they seem to have raised their rates.

Btw, I like telus. They have very inexpensive cell phone plans (only costs me $10/month down here.)