Slashdot Mirror

Another intersting issue is that the top winner of campaign financing was to http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.aspJohn Kerry and the Democrats The GOP tends to be for big business. And, interestingly enough, Microsft gives the most to democrats, not to the reubplicans (60% to 39%). And Bill Gates only gave, personally, $3892 to Federal Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOf Thou=0&txtName=gates&txtState=WA&txtZip=&txtEmploy =&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

If your thinking of the 527 groups, the democrats are the winners there. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cy cle=2004

For hard and softmoney organizations and people are limited to relatively the same amount in terms of who can give what and where.

Now, the greasing of the palms. Do you have evidence of this, other than campaign contributions? Frankly, from what I am seeing in this forum is that people are making unfounded acqusations that there is corruption without providing evidence. If Congresspeople are accepting bribes, then the FBI would be all over that.

Oh, yeah. Individuals give far more than companies give. So back up your asserations.

jackelfish writes:

They are not creating embryos, they are attempting to create pluripotent cells, from skin cells, in an attempt to replace malfunctioning neurons. There is not an entire organism involved here as they are not using gametes (eggs or sperm) in these experiments.

From the second linked article:

Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed.

As was proved with Dolly, this creates a cell which functions as a zygote. I.e., if implanted in a uterus, it can develop and eventually be birthed. This is precisely what it means to be an embryo. This is a simple statement of fact and is not controversial.

jackelfish continues:

This is where the term "cloning" becomes confused, in that many people think it always refers to the duplication of a whole organism (such as Dolly) where it simply means to insert foreign DNA into a cell.

Whether to call this cloning is a controversial question. One way to look at this is to try reducing this to a simple question. Everyone agrees that Dolly is a clone. But when did Dolly become a clone? At birth? At implantation? When the nuclear replacement was done?

I personally think the last of these is the only sensible option. But I recognise that some people disagree.

Moderators, you may wish to refer here prior to making your moderation selection.

You are correct in the interpretation of the OR rather than AND; however, this does not further the opposing argument. Any of the following are considered cartoons according to Webster.

1. a preparatory design, drawing, or painting (as for a fresco)

This is a simplification of a drawing for planning purposes.

OR
2 a : a drawing intended as satire, caricature, or humor b : COMIC STRIP

Here we see the traditional definition including satire and humor and the additional item of caricature.

OR
3 : ANIMATED CARTOON

This is entirely self-referential. An animated cartoon may be referred to as a cartoon. That's nice, but it does not tell us anything about the nature of cartoons, only that animated cartoons exist, which we know.

OR
4 : a ludicrously simplistic, unrealistic, or one-dimensional portrayal or version (the film's villain is an entertaining cartoon).

Again, we see the satirical angle, particularly with respect to political and dark humor. Humor does not have to be funny.

So, that leaves zero definitions that imply that all animation is cartoon. As it should be.

-Hope

I hate to encourage punnery, but that was really, really funny.

Well, the Webster dictionary disagrees. Note definition 3.

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6). General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5). A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.

In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6). General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5). A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.

Choose any of the definitions and you will see that the context of free is subjective. The first five definitions put into context of what free is and until you get to sub-definition 10 you get the wording of costing nothing. However, there is a license agreement you must abided by; the agreement any number of provision they wanted. Say right of attorney, release of any damages against the company and even that you can't say bad things publicly about the software (I haven't read the license but I have seen other software licenses with these stipulations). So the free definition has to be taken into context as the license may be actually transferring value from you to the license holder.

Merriam-Webster free:
1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty (free citizens) c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another

2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer (free actions) c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously

3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome (free from pain) (a speech free of political rhetoric) b : not bound, confined, or detained by force

4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
...
10 : not costing or charging anything

Uebermensch's are the way of the future. Even without the advent of engineering feats we might be able to, one day, use the full potential of our brains thus truly giving rise to mind over matter.

On vision: In 1975 I asked my eye doctor why they didn't perform surgury on the eye to correct the lenses. I was told it was impossible to operate on the eye because of how delicate the human eye was. Well.... My thoughts on engineering a better eye are that, in some cases, the lens is removed and replaced by a new lens. If, instead of just replacing it with a tiny piece of clear plastic (or a new organic lens donated by someone else) why not replace it with a transparent autofocusing lens using the now emerging transparent transistors. The device would use a low level laser to detect if it were in focus (ie: auto correcting) and something like squinting could cause the zoom capabilities to be used. (Squinting causes the eye muscles to increase the tension across the eye's membrane.) Or maybe a person could be taught to turn on the zoom capabilities in some way (like rolling their eyes up and then back down).

Hearing is already augmented in several ways and our vision is helped at night with Night Vision googles, infrared, ultraviolet googles. These capabilities can be integrated into the lenses placed into eyes as well.

However, it is more likely, IMHO, that genetics will play a greater role in what happens in the future. This is because engineering something into the human body is a lot harder (in the long run) than simply changing what something is like. Let me give an example. Which was it easier to do: Create larger more sturdy bulls via some engineering feat or through selective breeding and the chemicals which causes the bulls to grow larger than before? Although engineering did play a role in how we have managed to enlarge cows and bulls (and many other species); the work of genetics and chemistry have done more. Therefore, although it is nice to think about this - it is more likely that chemists and geneticists are going to be the ones who affect us the most in the future than engineers.

Notes: The average milk cow is now so enhanced that they produce, on average, 40,000 gallons of milk per year. At a recent livestock show there were bulls which stood ten feet tall on all fours (ie:not reared up). Absolutely HUGE!!!!!

Also: The average person has built in regulators on the usage of their muscles. (In order to not break everything you pick up.) As has been shown, through the use of certain drugs (like Crack Cocaine) these "regulators" are removed. This is why some people (but not all) can be shot and still walk around as if nothing has happened to them. These same people usually require three to four other people to just hold them still. Obviously there are still things we have as of yet to tap in the way of musculature.

In this case it doesn't make it any less correct. And why should it mention UNIX? I'd say that, considering the meaning, it's a fair guess as to why it was chosen.
But seeing as you don't trust E2:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=etc
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=etc
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aetc. &btnG=Google+Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etc.

That's not the "moral," that's the background of Japanese culture from which it's created. It may be shocking to you, but working hard and not complaining are actual values (for both genders) that are very much embodied in Japanese child-rearing.
From the Japanese perspective, the moral of American media is "slack off and whine a lot."

The moral of that family-oriented japanese movie is (gasp!) in synch with the culture that spawned it? Unfuckingbelievable!

Main Entry1: moral
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Main Entry2: moral
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-; 3 is m&-'ral
Function: noun
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ETHICS

You might as well have said "That's not a duck! It's a swimming bird (family Anatidae) in which the neck and legs are short, the body more or less depressed, and the bill broad and flat".

... useable is a correct spelling, although less common than "usable."

-Dan

baiue

ORIGINAL screenplays:
[...]
The Incredibles (Yep, Pixar does the same film over and over - ALL ANIMATION! I mean, come on!)
Kill Bill, Vol 2 (The best samauri movie made in 20 years. And wha!?!?!? It was American?)
Spiderman 2 (MAYBE 1978's Superman was an equal. MAYBE. I personally thought Spiderman 2 was better. But this is without question at least ONE of the greatest super hero movies ever made. Took the genre to new levels that perhaps ALL future superhero movies will be judged against. And FYI, before you say so, a "sequel" does not connotate unoriginalness. Empire Stikes Back and Godfather 2 both took the same characters and presented them in a new light to be wonderfully entertaining).

There is something wrong with your mind, maybe you're cafeine deprived.

The sequel to the adaptation to a comic book... as an example of originality?
How can you even think that?

You're not listing original movies, you're listing movies you liked it seems. Enjoyment is not directly proportional to originality.

Again: It's an adaptation of stories that have been told and retold, made and remade for decades. It might be well done, it might even be great, but its NOT ORIGINAL.

Main Entry2: original
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting an origin or beginning : INITIAL
2 a : not secondary, derivative, or imitative b : being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made
3 : independent and creative in thought or action : INVENTIVE
synonym see NEW

Kill Bill is derivative, Incredibles is derivative. Good, but not original.

I loved Incredibles, it's the best movie I've seen all year, but it is not original. It is inventive, but it's made from the recycled parts of decades of superhero stories. I can say a million good things about it, I can't honestly say that it is original.

You're saying I'm creating arbitrary meanings for phrases.

If you need the definition for "margin" of error, these might help

A measure, quantity, or degree of difference: a margin of 500 votes.

5 : measure or degree of difference

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&as_q dr=all&q=%22margin+of+error%22+votes should explain a lot more

We do not abandon our sick, injured, or weak... we look after them. And the higher brain functions that we have evolved seem to be serving a purpose of actually _weakening_ our species, rather than strengthening it.

How is it "actually" weakening our species?
I mean, the species that now has over six billion members, going up, how is that weakening it?
The species that is attempting to colonize other freaking planets, how, exactly, is it weakening our species to keep people alive?

If an individual is injured, infected or weakened, HOW THE HELL DOES IT HARM THE SPECIES TO HELP HIM SURVIVE?

Unless you seriously believe in lamarckism, then it strenghtens our species to keep these people alive and reproducing despite what circumstances have done to them.

The sick, malnourished kid with the broken leg that you would let die might grow up to perfect nuclear fusion reactors if we cure, feed and heal him. That is how it actually strenghtens the damn species to keep people alive.

That's what I find insightful... and perhaps it was my bad for not clarifying that point in my own previous post, but it really hadn't occurred to me that it would be necessary.

And that's why you're being called bad names and your intelligence is being questioned: Because you think that irrationnal, illogical, unscientific crap like that is insightfull, and it doesn't even OCCUR to you that others see it differently.

Then try this on for size.

(As Noah Webster rolls in his grave...)

You don't make yourself "cool" by fighting the system over mere word usage. It seems even Webster agrees with the usage.

Quit propagating this mess about semantics and actually challenge points.

Oh, and apparently irregardless is a word not a well-respected or popular but one none the less.

You're right. We're terrorists. We attack with the intent of terrorizing citizens. Wait, you mean we only target military and government targets? Well that's not terrorism, that's just plain war.

9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a terrorist attack by a fundamentalist group aimed at destroying America and everything we stand for. Military supported attacks aren't terrorism, they're war. War is messy, but the intent is usually a little more devious than simply scaring people. Copyright infringement is not stealing; Terrorism is not war. Don't let the Bush administration's doublespeak get to you so easily.

You're right. We're terrorists. We attack with the intent of terrorizing citizens. Wait, you mean we only target military and government targets? Well that's not terrorism, that's just plain war.

9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a terrorist attack by a fundamentalist group aimed at destroying America and everything we stand for. Military supported attacks aren't terrorism, they're war. War is messy, but the intent is usually a little more devious than simply scaring people. Copyright infringement is not stealing; Terrorism is not war. Don't let the Bush administration's doublespeak get to you so easily.

I don't have a 2 foot, $50 coin!

You use different ore for different coinage. Hence, Silver Dollars. Gold can be used as well. This isn't a new idea, older pennies are 100% copper because it use to be super cheap, today they are mostly nickel with a copper coating so people don't freak out.

Credit cards link to money, dimwit.

Credit cards link to money that is contained in some sort of secure location(ie a bank). Today, an American citizen can get by without ever touching real money.

Oh, and before calling me a dimwit:

Credit cards aren't linked to money, sounds like you were thinking of a Debit card

I don't have a 2 foot, $50 coin!

You use different ore for different coinage. Hence, Silver Dollars. Gold can be used as well. This isn't a new idea, older pennies are 100% copper because it use to be super cheap, today they are mostly nickel with a copper coating so people don't freak out.

Credit cards link to money, dimwit.

Credit cards link to money that is contained in some sort of secure location(ie a bank). Today, an American citizen can get by without ever touching real money.

Oh, and before calling me a dimwit:

Credit cards aren't linked to money, sounds like you were thinking of a Debit card

Hehe, "discovering a priori things we weren't aware of" is somewhat of an oxymoron: Websters: a priori

You are getting me all wrong.

I hope so, hope that you're not really this dense is what kept me from listing you as a foe...maybe you're having a bad day or something.

I am not posting to declare a hatred for this movie, but rather a lament for the fact that it could have been so much more.

Lamenting what it is while expressing a wish that it were something entirely different, especially since you have apparently not seen it, is hatred (prejudiced hostility).
Have you seen it yet? If not, then do not claim that it could have been anyting. It will be something, and you are not in a position to judge what that is yet.

So many times I have gone to the movies this year to be viscerally amazed, but mentally repulsed.

Keep your bile for what caused it. Don't spread it over the innocent.
If you were foolish enough to spend money on I Robot or Alien VS Predator, I can understand that you would have some pent up anger, but keep it focused on those who irked you, don't lash out at others.

That's actually perfectly sane for apps that need search capability

Unconeivable! I keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

And, it is even faster than http://www.webster.com/ at least for those of us still on dial-up.

Manifest Destiny.

Firkins, Furlongs, and Fortnights rule! And we thus eliminate the arbitrary seconds and use the more interesting microfortnights.

Firkins, Furlongs, and Fortnights rule! And we thus eliminate the arbitrary seconds and use the more interesting microfortnights.

Firkins, Furlongs, and Fortnights rule! And we thus eliminate the arbitrary seconds and use the more interesting microfortnights.

Why don't you ask Webster's Dictionary?

It ain't perfect english but then again this is only /. and for here it's good enough.

Since so many people are complaining that I allegedly misused the term "vigilante" - here's the Webster online definition that I was thinking of:

vigilante:
(snip)
broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice

In case there is further confusion - you do realize that words can have differing definitions, right? So, sorry fellas - it seems that I used the term completely correctly.

:)

You imply that getting a college degree demands being smart when it's all said and done. If you look at the number of stupid people with degrees, you'll find that just isn't so.

I also take inssue with the contention that all morons are dumb; the word "moron" comes from the Greek for "foolish". Religious fundamentalism is by design moronic.
--

Wrong.

Here's a link to Huygens' Merriam-Webster Online entry, with sample sound file. Basically it's "HI-gens".

I don't recognize you as an authority on what is a "real" name for a country (please list your qualifications), let's try some online sources that are probably a bit more authoratitive than your opinion.

Since the Oxford English dictionary requires a subscription, but my paperback version seems to come pretty close to the
Merriam-Webster dictionary where I refer you to the third listing for America.

And their definition of American, again I refer you to the third listing.

So, it's not to say that a Mexican or a Canadian isn't an American, being from the North American continent, yes, they are. But it is not their nationality. Nationality, naturally, referring to one's "NATION."

Your argument that United States of America is not a real name will be very displeasing to the Mexicans who hail from the United States of Mexico (I refer you to their constitution. See Article 1.) Which is also a federal republic of states and a federal district (31 states as opposed to our 50).

I'm sure your "analysis" will be equally disconcerting to the people of:
Repubblica Italiana, Republique Francaise, Reino de Espana, and just about every other country that has a long-form name, with Canada being one of the few exceptions.

You state: However, the United States is wrong to try and lay exclusive ownership of the adjective (note: not a nationality) "American."

Site your source. I mean, something besides your opinion that it's wrong.
Show me an authoritative source that backs this statement. Anything. A recognized dictionary of English. An impartial international organization.
If you can do that, then your argument may hold water, but in the meantime, it looks like your opinion, which doesn't.

Sounds like extortion to me.

They make a buggy OS with holes for viruses, and then require consumers to purchase their own AntiVirus to patch them. This removes motivation for producing a secure operating system because the worse their OS software, the more people will buy their AntiVirus product.

It seems like they're trying to figure out a way to charge for bugfixes and incremental updates to their security model, but instead of just selling those fixes like Apple (10.0, 10.1, 10.2--which I understand also have lots of new features), this model actually discourages production of good product in the first place.

Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?

This is the commonly accepted use of the word. Since you are obviously challenged by intellectual rigor (and I question your ability to reliably follow a hyperlink):

profane
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English prophane, from Middle French, from Latin profanus, from pro- before + fanum temple -- more at PRO-, FEAST
1 : not concerned with religion or religious purposes : SECULAR
2 : not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled : UNSANCTIFIED
3 : serving to debase or defile what is holy : IRREVERENT
4 a : not being among the initiated b : not possessing esoteric or expert knowledge

Now that I have gotten that out of my system...
Profanity has traditionally referred to language, that (as definition 3 above supports) involves something irreverent regarding something considered sacred. So, while "GO FUCK YOURSELF" is considered vulgar, "LET CHRIST FUCK YOU IN HELL" would be considered profane (personal belief systems notwithstanding).

Take it as an opportunity to learn some interesting English semantic information-- oh, and "LET CHRIST FUCK YOU IN HELL, YOU DUMBFUCK." :)

Before buying any more fast food, check out Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. I'm reading it right now, it has lots of interesting information about the fast food industry that might effect your desire for their food.

Before you ever use the word "effect" again, please check out a dictionary.

Of course there is also reference-dot-com.

I've already touched on the personal responsibility mantra elsewhere. I'll limit myself to one of your assertions: Fast food is not addictive.

This depends entirely on your definition of addiction. Webster has both a narrow and a broad definition of addiction. The first one is pretty narrowly tailored towards drugs, but I think the latter applies nicely to fast food.

We are genetically predisposed to prefer high fat, high sugar foods. This was a perfect survival strategy back when calories were scarce. But now they're everywhere. It's gotten to where food is so abundant in America that the high-calorie crap is far cheaper than the foods that are actually good for you. In such an environment, our innate desires actually work to undermine our own health.

The entire fast food industry takes advantage of this internal drive. Despite a few attempts at offering healthy choices, they generally make the big bucks by competing to make the biggest, most fattening, cheapest meals, and then advertising them to consumers as highly desirable.

That's just the direction the profit motive is taking the industry, and I don't see any non-government solution for forcing "personal responsibility" on our corporate masters.

Hooray! Thousands of people died! Let's par-tay!

Perhaps you need a refresher on the meaning of 'celebrate' before making would-be sarcastic remarks:

"1 : to perform (a sacrament or solemn ceremony) publicly and with appropriate rites"
"2 a : to honor (as a holiday) by solemn ceremonies"

the rest of the world calls it "wus-ter." Hear the lovely lady at Webster say it here.

Publish (source):
1 a : to make generally known b : to make public announcement of
2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author)
intransitive senses
1 : to put out an edition
2 : to have one's work accepted for publication

Publishing a work is actually done by the artist, trough an editor (usually), which then propose it to different distribution channel. At some point a collection of work might be grouped and recorded (an album), or a single work could be produced (movie), the resulting product would then be published to various distribution channels (in the case of majors, their own).

Distribute (source):
transitive senses
1 : to divide among several or many : APPORTION [distribute expenses]
3 a : to divide or separate especially into kinds b : to return the units of (as typeset matter) to storage
4 : to use in or as an operation so as to be mathematically distributive
intransitive senses : to be mathematically distributive
[multiplication distributes over addition] - distributee /dis-"tri-by&-'tE/ noun
synonyms DISTRIBUTE, DISPENSE, DIVIDE, DEAL, DOLE OUT
mean to give out, usually in shares, to each member of a group.
DISTRIBUTE implies an apportioning by separation of something into parts, units, or amounts [distributed food to the needy]. DISPENSE suggests the giving of a carefully weighed or measured portion to each of a group according to due or need [dispensed wisdom to the students]. DIVIDE stresses the separation of a whole into parts and implies that the parts are equal [three charitable groups divided the proceeds]. DEAL emphasizes the allotment of something piece by piece [deal out equipment and supplies]. DOLE OUT implies a carefully measured portion that is often scant or niggardly [doled out what little food there was].

The distribution channels, using various formats (cd, vhs, whatever) then divide the published worked into many copies which they sell (usually).
When we use P2P software we distribute files, we do not publish them, to be able to publish something a software would need to create that something first.

However I feel the need to point out that I strongly oppose what is happening in Italy. I just couldn't resist playing the word game. Fact is, most people abusing the law, or using loophole, are actually doing exactly this, arguing over words, not concepts, making the law systems pretty hard to grasp and navigate trough. We don't need a dictionnary, we all knew what they meant in their judgement, even if it's a sad sad one.

Publish (source):
1 a : to make generally known b : to make public announcement of
2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author)
intransitive senses
1 : to put out an edition
2 : to have one's work accepted for publication

Publishing a work is actually done by the artist, trough an editor (usually), which then propose it to different distribution channel. At some point a collection of work might be grouped and recorded (an album), or a single work could be produced (movie), the resulting product would then be published to various distribution channels (in the case of majors, their own).

Distribute (source):
transitive senses
1 : to divide among several or many : APPORTION [distribute expenses]
3 a : to divide or separate especially into kinds b : to return the units of (as typeset matter) to storage
4 : to use in or as an operation so as to be mathematically distributive
intransitive senses : to be mathematically distributive
[multiplication distributes over addition] - distributee /dis-"tri-by&-'tE/ noun
synonyms DISTRIBUTE, DISPENSE, DIVIDE, DEAL, DOLE OUT
mean to give out, usually in shares, to each member of a group.
DISTRIBUTE implies an apportioning by separation of something into parts, units, or amounts [distributed food to the needy]. DISPENSE suggests the giving of a carefully weighed or measured portion to each of a group according to due or need [dispensed wisdom to the students]. DIVIDE stresses the separation of a whole into parts and implies that the parts are equal [three charitable groups divided the proceeds]. DEAL emphasizes the allotment of something piece by piece [deal out equipment and supplies]. DOLE OUT implies a carefully measured portion that is often scant or niggardly [doled out what little food there was].

The distribution channels, using various formats (cd, vhs, whatever) then divide the published worked into many copies which they sell (usually).
When we use P2P software we distribute files, we do not publish them, to be able to publish something a software would need to create that something first.

However I feel the need to point out that I strongly oppose what is happening in Italy. I just couldn't resist playing the word game. Fact is, most people abusing the law, or using loophole, are actually doing exactly this, arguing over words, not concepts, making the law systems pretty hard to grasp and navigate trough. We don't need a dictionnary, we all knew what they meant in their judgement, even if it's a sad sad one.

From Webster Online

Main Entry: copyright
Function: noun
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)

Webster Online

Main Entry: infringement
Function: noun
1 : the act of infringing : VIOLATION
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Unless the songs being shared were not available on any of the available download stores...

Even if the material is unavailable in the format that you want it in, one does not have the right to share it unless they truly were given (by the copyright holder) the rights for distribution.

What I would love to see though is an environment where the large distributors are not part of the picture at all and artist can choose for themselves how to get their work out to the masses. The acceptance of the Internet should allow for a more direct artist to consumer market. Coming up with a business model could be tough, but if they can cut out the overhead of a distributor, it should be possible. We as consumers will need to change our purchasing habits to allow for the new models. Obviously illegal downloading isn't necessarily helping the artist (yes, one could argue it ultimately leads to a CD sale, but for most, it probably doesn't) and I imagine most would like to be compensated (you'll have the die hards in it for the art, but most probably would like to generate income).

Until the artist and the consumers come up with another process, the RIAA is going to exist and we'll have to deal with their rules.

From Webster Online

Main Entry: copyright
Function: noun
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)

Webster Online

Main Entry: infringement
Function: noun
1 : the act of infringing : VIOLATION
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Unless the songs being shared were not available on any of the available download stores...

Even if the material is unavailable in the format that you want it in, one does not have the right to share it unless they truly were given (by the copyright holder) the rights for distribution.

What I would love to see though is an environment where the large distributors are not part of the picture at all and artist can choose for themselves how to get their work out to the masses. The acceptance of the Internet should allow for a more direct artist to consumer market. Coming up with a business model could be tough, but if they can cut out the overhead of a distributor, it should be possible. We as consumers will need to change our purchasing habits to allow for the new models. Obviously illegal downloading isn't necessarily helping the artist (yes, one could argue it ultimately leads to a CD sale, but for most, it probably doesn't) and I imagine most would like to be compensated (you'll have the die hards in it for the art, but most probably would like to generate income).

Until the artist and the consumers come up with another process, the RIAA is going to exist and we'll have to deal with their rules.