Slashdot Mirror
Slashback V: Espionage, Midwifery, Intrusion
First, a word from our sponsor: We heard from the tireless Richard M. Stallman, nothing if not consistent in his argument, who wrote:
" Would you please post this? It is in response to the discussion of congressional hearings on Napster, but please post it however you think best.I ask people to think twice before using the term "piracy" to describe sharing published information with other people. That word is a propaganda term used by the owners of information to convey the idea that sharing is wrong; when you use it, you aid their campaign.
Unless you believe that sharing information is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship and kidnaping the people on it, please don't use the term 'piracy' to describe sharing."
Thanks for the note, Richard. Now tell Lars ...
Birth of an island. Regarding the story posted this week about the ongoing study of an emerging island in the South Pacific, Bobity writes "Additional photos are posted at this site." Why can't we embed some networking cable before it cools completely?
So maybe 730 days from now ... In the ongoing battle for hearts, minds and desktops, fingers and livers of free software users, Helixcode and Eazel aren't the only ones to make cool strides lately. Per Wigren writes: "Kaiwal Software (Shane) Co., Ltd. and theKompany.com have just signed an agreement to sponsor two developers for 2 years in order to focus on developing KWord, the free word processor for the KDE office suite. " And since at this moment, KWord is probably the closest thing to DTP for Linux (excepting demo-only FrameMaker), that news makes me smile. But two years?! That's long term thinking.
Red wine? White Wine. Hot towel? Your hard drive, please, sir? Red wine? With all the intrusions of modern life, it's good to know that at least the computer on your desk at home can't be used by your employer to check who you've been writing e-mail to, and about what. Unless they can. tregoweth writes "MSNBC has a story about one of the Northwest Airlines employees whose hard drives were searched by Northwest's lawyers, as previously mentioned on Slashdot. The last paragraph of the article is chilling. " It also makes you think about the significance of all those "give employees free computer" programs from Ford, et al.
Book larnin' on the cheap: carlos_benj writes "I ran across this site today and thought slashdotters who'd had their interests piqued by the ArsDigita free university subject might want to take a look. Their educational philosophy is interesting but may not appeal to those more interested in accreditation than the acquisition of knowledge. The concept would be a definite boon to those with little money but access to the net. The fact that they will be partnering with industry could lend weight to their degree programs to help offset the lack of accreditation. "
From the Mixed Up Files of James Bond And John LeCarre: SEWilco writes "Over at HNN they noticed that the latest UK military laptop theft included non-classified details of how the next generation of fighter aircraft can be controlled from the ground. Oops. Meanwhile, the US State Department says 16 laptops are missing, although only one had classified information -- but that's only one Department.
We discussed the possibilities of remote controlled warcraft earlier, but Her Royal Highness has not participated in the discussion nor have there been any demands from her laywers."
Gee, why would I feel that the Northwest Airlines executive's dismissal of the employees' concerns would be more compelling had only they, personally, consented to turn over the contents of *their* personal computers to the employee's lawyers?
I'm moderately disturbed by the image of management and union officials negotiating the terms of a search... all without consulting the individuals who will also be subjected to the search. However, I'm *very* disturbed by someone casually dismissing the impact of his actions... someone who will undoubtably proclaim that *his* data must be protected because of some intrinsic difference between the plans and concerns of a multimillionaire and a poorly paid flight attendant.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.
You are mixing two totally different ideas. That's like saying, "Don't watch professional sports; go and play with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results."
Well, what is wrong with doing both? Watching a world-class athlete (or musician) is a completely different experience than doing it myself. One is a social experience, and one is experiencing the awe of the epitome of human greatness.
Rather than my repeat my last post, reread it and think about it. The greatest music and art has always been sponsored. Today it's usually corporations, in the past it was royalty, the rich and the church.
Thinking that world-class music and art have ever been developed without sponsorship is just mindless idealism.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Thesaurus or no, it's in the dictionary : : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright "
"3
I think the word has been used in this context with this meaning for a long while. You can't deny the meaning of the word because you don't like the other definitions.
On a related note, I'd like to protest the use of the word "computer" to denote a IC based electronic calculating device. Unless you think your Pentium is some how the equivilant of a trained mathematition adding large collumns of numbers.
From Webster 's 1828 Dictionary:
PI'RACY, n. [L. piratica, from Gr. to attempt, to dare, to enterprise, whence L. periculum, experior; Eng. to fare.]
1. The act, practice or crime of robbing on the high seas; the taking of property from others by open violence and without authority, on the sea; a crime that answers to robbery on land.
Other acts than robbery on the high seas, are declared by statute to be piracy. See Act of Congress, April 30, 1790.
2. The robbing of another by taking his writings.
-------------
The word 'piracy' was not only in use, but in common enough use to be canonized in the dictionary, as meaning 'appropriation of content' over 100 years before RMS was even _BORN_. RMS is fighting a fight that was over and done nearly 175 years ago.
He also slanders the original sense of the word, alleging it's synonymous with kidnapping and even rape. Nothing could be further from the truth. Piracy, in the original sense of 'robbery on the seas,' means just that -- robbery. It's analagous to a charge of armed robbery today; that doesn't imply rape or kidnapping, and if those crimes occured during a robbery, the suspect would be charged with those crimes separately.
Just wanted to get that off my chest -- I'm tired of people alleging that this word usage is 'corporate propaganda' when it was in use long before the existance of the corporations alleged to have invented it.
Propaganda cuts both ways.
--
I only wish I'd said it first.
Piracy is exactly the right word. People who download music without paying for it are stealing. Period. People who offer up copyrighted music that they don't have the right to distribute are running a pirate duplication plant. Period.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Don't like this? Go change the rules.
OK
--
+&x
The point is that, for a very good reason, the law grants the author of IP the ownership of it for a set amount of time.
Ya know, the Constituation said a "limited" amount of time. Currently it is life +75(?), which is not limited in any sense of the word that I understand.
Thus, when you copy someone's MP3s online, you are stealing in that a) you are taking something without permission of the owner, in this case a copy of the data; and b) you are depriving the owner of their due remuneration.
A) You are "taking" a copy, which is to say you are "making" a copy and not taking anything (and, IMHO taking is necessary for stealing)
B) Due renumeration=value. Value=Demand/Supply. Digital media makes supply infinite, value=0. There are other rewards than what is just "fair" though, luckily for us.
--
+&x
Besides "software piracy" has been used in the context he is arguing against longer than "free software" has been used in the context he prefers.
That's because he realized that "software piracy" was an inevitable result of the system that was being created. Thus he made "free software" which, incredibly (I hopy you're following here) amounts to almost the exact same action on the part of the user.(i.e. sharing)
So one was in response to the other so logically it should follow it.
--
+&x
Note that he, too, is using a term solely for propaganda value. "Sharing" something you don't own isn't generally viewed in very positive terms.
Would Mr. Stallman be happy to learn that a major company was "sharing" a binary-only version of gcc which they had made substantial enhancements to? After all, we all know *sharing* can never be *wrong*.
RMS is a great guy, but never forget that he's just as much into propaganda as anyone else, and arguably moreso than most.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
True, wAreZ DoodZ called themselves 'pirates', but most of us are not accustomed to taking them as experts in usage -- or much of anything. Next you'll start spelling like them...
Warez doods also consider themselves "elite" -- I suppose you agree, since you cite them as authorities. Many of them say they're studs, too. Need I go on? "Pirates" was a ill-informed usage, based on an ignorance about true piracy, and a romantization of their own actions. And make no mistake, they *did* romanticize the pirate image!
Your use of 'pirate' may be fine on a warez BBS or casual conversation. In a court, or a reasoned debate, it is inflammatory.
"Accurate"? At best, it's an analogy -- a poor one. Note that you *made up* the definition you supplied. You didn't even make a feeble attempt at accuracy. I doubt a pirate would copy your possessions and let you retain them.
"Preys on"? Boy, your momma really protected you well, if you've never seen a real victim. Illegal copying is not even in the same category as rape, murder, torture, pillage etc. Those are typical pirate acts. [Apparently, you did not understand what I said about the misuse of words such as 'murder' in my original post]
I think you are simply insensitive to the real meaning of piracy. They do still exist, and they still kill or take their victims hostage, as always. They are generally not just cargo thieves -- the helplessness of their victims on the high seas seems to bring out the worst in them. Piracy is a capital offence in most jurisdictions that allow capital offences. In some nations, the only two capital offenses are piracy and treason.
Ny two bit shoplifter who grabs a CD does worse than the criminal (and I'll grant you that part) who copies a CD, because they have taken it 100%. If my ex steals my CD, I no longer have it. *I* cannot use it. All three people are committing criminal acts, the one you call 'pirate' is actually doing the least damage *per act*
I concede that the *aggregate* effects are huge, but that does not justify the use of such strong term for the individual act. Nor does it justify trivializing the horror of true piracy. [again, see what I said about 'fur is murder']
The act of diminishing the value of a thing is not theft. Theft involves the loss of a thing.
REDUCING THE VALUE OF A THING (is less than) THEFT OF A THING (is much less than) PIRACY
If I don't keep my yard up property, I may reduce my neighbor's property values. This is not as bad as taking my neighbors property from them (theft) and not nearly as bad as capturing their houses, holding them hostage, stealing all their possessions, and possibly raping and killing them.
Accurate? HAH!
Unlawful copying is a civil wrong-doing, a violation of copyright. In a few specific situations, it may be a criminal act, but it is not theft, just as it is not "illegal dumping of toxic wastes" Under no circumstances is it "piracy"
There are many situations where common usage is different from legal usage and the usage of informed discussion. "Assault" in common usage, means an attack. In the law and informed debate, it means a threat of violence (and possibly an attempt) Hence: "Assault and battery" where battery is the actual attack.
You do a disservice to the overall debate if you cloud the terms by calling 'copying' piracy.
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
i could be wrong, but i don't think he said people sharing their music over the net was *right*. in fact i think he's said that things like the gpl can't really be applied to books or music.
his point is that if someone shares something without authorisation (be it a person's music, or their gpl'ed code) it's not the moral equivalent of attacking a ship at high sea and kidnapping the crew.
do you really think that an illegal copy of ms word, a metallica song, or a binary only copy of emacs are crimes of the same level as theft of a ship and kidnapping/enslaving/murdering a fair number of people? i'll be bent out of shape if someone distributed binary copies of any stuff i write that's gpl'd, but i don't think it's on that level!
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The Register wrote an article on how Slashdot and BBC got duped (even though /. used the humor icon), and another article after many people responded, including one of the guys behind the spud server.
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
>I'd say that the term, "Intellectual Property"
>is also propaganda, since the Consitution only
>mentions securing "authors" (not "owners") the
>temporary right to exclusive use of the work.
>Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive
>license than an inherent right of the author,
>but some people keep portraying it that way.
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right. I'm sure that's not the only "right" the Constitution does not explicitely define.
This might be hard to understand for some people, but the Constitution of the United States of America is not the only, nor the best, list of "fundamental rights", nor will there ever be one.
The validity of rights is what gives value to that Constitution, and rights are valid if they make sense, not if they are backed by a document. If you wish to invalidate a right, argument against it. Otherwise, one can just invalidate the Constitution on the grounds of Treason to the Crown.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
If that selfishness "deprives society", so be it, I have the most fundamental right to be selfish, perhaps that is where Intellectual Property rests as a right.
If someone wants to take away the right to not give to charity, to try to get more of anything than others, to not be nice and to generally be a jerk whenever one wants to, they should expect some oposition. In that sense, there is no reason to be less selfish about Intellectual Property than with normal Property.
What may or may not make sense is the current protections of Intellectual Property.
But that's like arguing against television because of the lack of quality programming: it may make it problematic and almost useless, but the problem is the programming, not the TV set (yep, bad analogy, but what the heck).
IMNSHO, we have spent more than a couple of centuries refining the solutions for books, we might as well use them for a guide.
If I buy a book, I'm paying for its Intellectual Property (plus the paper), and I demand what I buy. I have a right to that Intellectual Property, as a consumer. That includes reading it however I want, scribbling on it as I like, arguing about it, criticize it, quote it within "fair use", photocopy it for personal use, or loan my original copy (as long as I'm not duplicating its users). I may not have the right to redistribute it (unless it was given to me), but I have the right to use it (because it was given to me), and to restrict that use is to take away that right... fraud, or at least a breach of contract.
As far as I know, no author can be put in jail for quoting a paragraph of another book if it is shown as a quote (credit), and is not unquestionably superflous... that is, as long as it is a valid part of the new work.
The extent of valid appropiation of material varies with the kind of content, but people develop an intuitive "sense" of what is right or wrong. It doesn't take an expert to know what kind of content is quotable in a novel, and what is quotable for a scientific paper.
One can write a legitimate "novel about a novel", valid because it gives new meaning or exposition to the material, where in the second a greater semantic difference would be required. But one doesn't need to know that to know if it's right or wrong when one reads it; and usually with greater leniancy than the legal letter which is there to deal with transgressions noticeable enough to end up in court in the first place.
The point is Intellectual Property is valid as a right, per se, but it requires sensible systems and some flexibility by nature.
It works on some instances because most people had time, trials and errors to develop a sense of how it should be; in younger media, that sense is not as developed, and some people try to protect their rights as owners by interpreting obsolete laws in the most restrictive manner (and make newer ones based on those interpretations). They argue that the ease of duplication of material encourages illegal redistribution, but decades of Xerox copy machines with a booming book market proves the argument wrong.
That attitude is to be expected, the problem is that people do not defend their rights as buyers of that property. Without the conflict the solution is not negotiated. Actually, I would be surprised if the attitude was not at first a bluff because they expected conflict and negotiation... it just became unexpectedly easy to go for the jackpot.
And here I cut the disgression before I break the 640K barrier.
Bodrius
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
It's not a crime. It's only a civil offence, not a criminal offence. (If you do it at some huge level it is a crime in the US, but that was only made so within the last few years, and is not true elsewhere).
However, the recording industry and people like Lars use the word "crime", and it enters the public consciousness that it *is* a crime to breach copyright.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
You forgot about shooting/enslaving the men and raping/enslaving the women, which is how it happens today in some parts of the world. Oh, whoops, the analogy breaks down. The whole "skull-and-crossbones" cartoon stuff really trivialises an area of crime which is extremely violent and ruthless.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Negative Income Tax. ( devised by Nobel exonimist Milton Friedman ) if you made less then the established minimum income, you would get a check from the IRS, for bring them up to that standard.
or read the idea of Ezra Pound, Robert Theobald, etc....
there is lots we can do to comisate, those who's jobs the internet has made opsoleite.
Hmm, would this be paid out weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Who pays for the infrastructure needed to take care of it?
What happens if it's paid out yearly and 3 months into the year an artist finds out they just aren't going to be able to afford food AND art/music/sculpting/whatever supplies.
Not to mention, what if I spend 12 months sleeping on my couch, do I still get paid by the IRS?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Much data has a value, for example contact databases, code, and indeed music. The owner of that information has a right to control the terms under which it is used. Some people choose to release their code under [insert GPL-alike licence here], whilst others charge for it. Likewise some musicians release their information (recordings) for free, whilst others make a living out of selling that information at a rate that the market determines. That is clear from the fact that a CD costs cents to burn, whilst a music CD costs Dollars to buy. The difference is the market attributed value that has been attached the data contained on the CD. Just because music is now frequently stored on media other than CDs it doesn't reduce its value.
Secondly, he has not made the distinction between sharing and copying data. When RMS says that using the term "piracy" is wrong to refer to _sharing_ data that is copyrighted he is clearly correct, however it can be accurately applied to the _unlawful downloading/copying_ of material that you do not have a right to use. He has blurred these two _different_ acts, possibly in order to shift the debate onto safer ground.
The essence of the Napster debate is the question of whether providing tools to help people pirate (used deliberately) IP is in itself unlawful, especially when you provide such tools under a profit motive. This is a completely separate debate to whether the free sharing of information should be restricted, and to whether I have a right to steal data by downloading IP that I do not have licence to use (for example if I already own a copy of the material on a CD).
The record companies are not saying that sharing information is piracy, but that unlawfully downloading it is. Separately they are challenging the ability to provide tools that enable the unlawful copying of protected information without any kind of mechanism to protect against IP theft.
My position on this is that the sharing of information is clearly a good thing (tm), however there must be some protection against the theft of IP or the profit incentive for producing data will be seriously eroded. Secondly, I think that Napster have been irresponsible in attempting to profit (though indirectly) through providing a tool that enables piracy on a massive scale without any kind of protection for the owners of the information that is shared.
The issue of whether allowing some level of piracy as a "taster" actually increases CD sales is, again, another debate. The studies that related copying tapes to increased CD sales are not relevant to whether MP3 sharing will increase CD sales because of the difference in scale, and because this ignores the fact that CDs provide significantly better quality and practicality than tapes (ie. instant track access etc). MP3s provide near CD quality, and with the advent of portable MP3 players, the same portability features as CDs. It would also take a vast amount of time and effort to amass a large collection of bootlegged tapes (not to mention a large number of tapes), whereas Napster (etc. etc.) allow the easy collection of a massive number of tracks that can then be easily archived and stored in a small space, available for instant replay. So whereas buying a CD if you already have a taped copy provides you with additional quality and benefits, buying a CD when you already have an MP3 copy does not provide any additional benefit. As an example, the only music I buy now is on Vinyl, as that provides the additional benefit of being able to mix it on a pair of turntables, whereas if I want any non-dance music, it is freely available for me to steal using Napster or whatever other method you choose.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
Most people seem to throw the word 'piracy' around as if it were just a cartoon concept: the buccaneer with eye patch, peg-leg, parrot, etc. flying a skull-and-bones
By doing this, they are revealing their own ignorance. True piracy exists on the high seas today and is one of the most serious offenses an individual can commit under international law. There have been several cases around the world where individuals have successfully sued for being libel or defamation after being called 'pirates' inappropriately (for software theft and other actions)
The term 'pirate' for software theft *was* used precisely to place the alleged activities in a more negative light in several early lawsuits. I recall discussion of this in some of the hobbyist periodicals of the early 80's like SoftTalk (perhaps when it was called "Apple something")
It is no more legitimate than calling someone who wears fur a "murderer" - 'murder' means killing a human being (or, in some jurisdictions, causing to be killed, or being involved in a criminal conspiracy resulting in death) Fur isn't murder. Eating prime rib isn't murder. stepping on an ant isn't murder. Annoying Greenpeace isn't murder.
Some additional info:
DuPlessis v. DeKlerk (South Africa) defamation suit against a broadcaster for using the term 'pirate', among other things
There was a case in the 80's in Australia, where a company that was successfully sued for illegal use and sale of commercial software (after ceasing to pay license fees), later turned around and successfully sued for the plaintiffs public use of the term 'pirate'. Unfortunately, i could not find a link for this
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
No, he was stealing. He was actually depriving you of a tangeble object (a CD). Online, you can only copy; you're getting the songs for nothing, but you're not taking anything away from the original owner. All that happens is that the CD is slightly devalued because there is one more copy in existance, but it is by it's very definition not theft. Why is there so much confusion over this?
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Intellectual property, however, is artificialy restricted to promote creativity. Sharing of information, or music, is natural; copyright law is a compromise of freedom in order to ensure artists have a motivation to keep creating art. But copyright law is not a natural law.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Hmmm - were you stealing when you copied those definitions from the dictionary directly into your Slashdot post? Why or why not?
sPh
Copyrights and patents are more an exclusive license than an inherent right of the author, but some people keep portraying it that way.
About 17,000 by my estimates, excluding the resistance of the wires interconnecting them all. This, of course, assumes you use a "standard" computer. You can do the calculations yourself: assume 0.5 volts and 20mA of current per battery. Given that, calculate the wattage (hint: volts * amps), and then do some simple alegbra. I used 250 watts to be my "normal" server, hence the result above. I found a small RISC computer and did some quick calculations and figured out that you could make a mini-webserver that served maybe 2-3 pages and had a functional TCP/IP stack + LAN card to run on about 15 potatoes.
Back in the early 1980's when the personal computer world was coming into being, the kids running about with their wareZ BBS systems were using the term "Pirate" to describe themselves.
Besides, the term is accurate. A Pirate is one who preys on others, and takes their work and claims the profit.
Well regulated, in the context of a militia, meant drilled, trained and proficient. Think of a well regulated watch. Here are some usage examples from the OED.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"...but who's really concerned about what Agriculture is trying to keep secret?"
Um, did you ever wonder where the U.S. government forecasts about crop yields in the Soviet Union came from? Or where the current forecasts about crop yields in North Korea come from?
Ever wonder about the geopolitical impact of another year of famine in a country that combines a stone-cold whacko dictator, a not-very-well-hidden nuclear weapons program, a very successful ballistic missile program, and a population with a *long*-standing hatred of Japan?
Yeah--the people in Washington worry about that, too. Which is why there are people at the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture who view information from sattelites that is considered to be classified data.
John Murdoch
P.S.: No kidding: I'm actually a 4-H leader, which is a Dept. of Agriculture-funded program.
Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people.
to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general.
In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster. In the second place, I carefully indicated that what I was criticizing was gross copyright violation: In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright. I fully agree that Fair Use covers the creation and trading of MP3s among those who actually own the CDs involved. I have absolutely no problem with that.
if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests.
False. Again, this is a moral dodge. "I wouldn't have ever bought a stereo anyway, so I can go ahead and steal one." It is wonderfully convenient for the thief to soothe his injured conscience like that: "I would never consider buying this CD, so it's okay for me to rip off MP3s of it." This is preposterous, and I sincerely hope you weren't serious.
There is a simple solution to those cases where you can't/won't buy a CD:
DON'T MAKE OR OBTAIN MP3s OF IT.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
RMS's choice of focus is unfortunate because it draws attention away from the issues. It was like feminists crying about using the word "Man" to refer to all of humanity. There are women getting abused, rendered homeless, being raped and tortured, etc. etc. but all the feminists can talk about is what words we use.
The feminists weren't altogether wrong to focus on language. Language is shaped by power relations in society and language in part determines what is "thinkable" in any situation. Adding to our vocabulary (such as "chairperson" for "chairman") increases the likelihood that we will consider possibilities that were previously unthinkable (such as "The chairperson has really nice legs, don't you think?").
The scenario you described would actually be:
espionage (sp--näzh, -nj) n. The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I think people are starting to realize that the essence of liberal democracy is to have as FEW laws as are required to protect us from harm. The question then revolves around whether a musician is harmed by my downloading MP3's off of Napster or wherever. Since mass-marketed music is not generally seen as essential for the pursuit of happiness, it need not be protected as property. Therefore, I argue that musicians suffer no harm when I download their music for free, because they don't have legitimate title to it. Their claims of lost revenue are simply wrong because they are based on forged ownership papers.
If you talk to some of IBM's ethical hackers you will find out that security is usually a joke. Most places are just wide open.
And physical security is a growing issue. So some state department computer was stolen? If you know what you are doing, getting into "secure areas" is apparently pretty easy.
It isn't just a problem for computers, and it won't be goin g away any time soon.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The Constitution does not mention privacy as a right either, yet many of us consider it a fundamental right.
For your reading enjoyment, I give you the ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to privacy is a generally accepted principle in this country. Just because it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's any less valid.
Intellectual Property makes sense as a right. I consider I have the right to not-share what I think, know or invent with you, the government, or society in general. I also consider I have the right to benefit or not benefit from it, no matter how great or how little effort was necessary to create it.
While I personally feel that some degree of control over one's ideas for a very limited period of time can be beneficial, it is hardly a natural sort of right in the same vein as the right to privacy. If you really want to control your ideas, you simply don't disseminate them. Nobody is going to perform a mind-meld with you to take your thoughts or ideas. Therefore you control them. Now, once you've told your idea to others, it becomes theirs as well. You cannot remove it from their brain and you should not be able to prohibit them from acting on it, writing it down, copying it, or repeating or disseminating it to others. That is exactly what "intellectual property" laws attempt to do.
When the Constitution was written, it was recognized that granting limited rights to people who publish their ideas would encourage them to do so, thereby adding their thoughts and knowledge to the public domain. Now their works would not become part of the domain immediately. They would have a period of time where they were legally allowed to prevent others from copying or distributing their works so that they could profit from their sale and/or use. This was accomplished through patent and copyright law. Once the period of exclusive control was up, the works became public domain, free for all to use and build upon. This seems to be a pretty decent idea and would probably work pretty well. Unfortunately people and corporations got greedy and began lobbying our government to extend the period of time they could control these works. In most cases it wasn't even the creators themselves that wanted the extensions, it was the heirs of the creator or a corporation that had purchased the work or idea.
I fail to see how this helps to further the purpose of copyright in the first place. Nothing is becoming public domain anymore. They just keep extending the period of control. They have broken the system. It no longer works. It no longer benefits the people in general. It just benefits the owners of the works out there. They are now playing the creators off against the consumers while they play like they're completely innocent in all this and are just trying to defend the rights of the poor creators to make a buck off of their hard work. What a bunch of crap. They are lobbying for an indefinite period of control. They've twisted the system so much that it no longer accomplishes its goal. They've created a system that does not serve the public interest any longer and then they are shocked when the public no longer wants to play by their rules.
I say to hell with them and their bad-faith lobbying against our interests. If they really wanted to help the artists and serve consumers better, they'd get the hell out of the way and roll back the copyright terms to what they originally were, or even less considering how fast things become obsolete now. Until the system is fixed and once again balances the ability of creators to profit from their ideas and the interests of the public that this information be freely available for others to use and build upon, I do not expect to see copyright infringement keep increasing. I sure won't shed any tears for those corporations, or even many of the creators who do not seem to mind giving the public the shaft.
They've set out to abuse the system, now they're starting to see a backlash. We need to keep fighting them, but not just by continuing to distribute MP3s and other such works as a sign of civil disobedience, but by doing some of our own lobbying and protesting. We need to get people who have the ears of our congresscritters to explain to them that we're tired of Congress continuing to aid these corporations in their attempts to screw the public. I'm just afraid that corporate money speaks a lot louder than anything we can say.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I thought it was a good post.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
By calling the act of downloading MP3's civil disobedience, you immediately create a channel of public discourse which aligns itself with a long and respected liberal democratic tradition. Downloading music alone in your basement in the wee hours of the morning does nothing to bring discussion about intellectual property issues to the fore. That means that the agenda is always set by the mass media.
We have to tell people "Yes, I'm pirating MP3's and I'm damn proud of it." This sheepishness is the result of people ACTING like criminals. The word "piracy" is appropriate for people who sneak around the internet like thieves. Broadcast it! Tell the world you think it's wrong. Don't call it sharing. It defeats the purpose of protest.
http://www.g nu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellectual Property
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money.
In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is true of you, but a number of people posting here are hopelessly blind to the fact of what precisely is happening when they give away STOLEN copies of music. They are saying that because the owner of the copyright still has his copy, nothing has actually been taken from him.
This is a pathetic moral dodge. It is a feeble attempt at excusing one's behavior. A lot of these people are smarter than this, which is why it's surprising that they would hope to persuade or confound others with such blatant nonsense.
Clue time, folks: the copyright owner is not saying that you've taken his copy. Duh. He is saying that you have damaged (in some cases severely) his ability to profit from his work. He profits by selling copies of his music for others to enjoy. You are destroying his ability to earn a living at doing so when you give away copies.
How hard is this to figure out? If a person is not satisfied at the return on his investment in making music, he is less likely to make music. In some cases he may not be able to do so at all because he will be forced into other work that does not afford him the resources necessary to make music.
You bozos need to wake up and realize that the net result of this continued stealing will be one of two things. Either the feds will start regulating the Internet in a *serious* way, OR you will drive musicians out of the music business. Or both.
Either way: get ready to enjoy a far less luxuriant lifestyle.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I know what you'll say. You'll say "But you harmed Metallica by not buying their music. That means they have less money than they would have had otherwise, and that is substantial harm."
To which I would reply:
- I may not have purchased the CD anyway because it had 12 songs on it that were crappy.
- Since property is a restriction on freedom (by the responsibilities it places on the owner and the restrictions it places on everyone else with respect to that owner's "property"), we ought only to assign property rights where they are absolutely necessary. The right to own ideas is NOT critical to survival. Therefore, we ought not to have laws that treat ideas or information as property. Such laws would be (are) a threat to freedom.
Take that, D-Boy. Go on, knock the block off my shoulder... I dare ya!Besides that, dictionaries only describe language use, they do not determine it.
It also makes you think about the significance of all those "give employees free computer" programs from Ford, et al. OK, so what Northwest did was wrong (to put it lightly). This obviousley means, in Slashdot terms that every "big bad company" that gives its employees a free PC is doing it for their own good? I seriousley doubt that. I think that was definatley a cheap shot on Ford. I mean what are they going to find out? Which factory-line worker put his gum into the glove box of a new focus, then emailed his friend? Yeah, right. Besides what was Northwest did was get a courtorder to search his PC. This is a precedent that should not have been sent. Northwest either had alot of information to suggest that Mr. Reeve was co-ordinating this call-in-sick campaign, OR, it was just the magistrates/courts fault for issuing this courtorder, based on not enough evidence.
If the Government wants to track down the stolen laptops, it should start and end with its own employees.
I'm a consultant who's been at quite a few companies, and the laptops that disappear always vanish during normal business hours (meaning not when the cleaning staff is in there). What disappears after hours when the cleaning staff is there? Money, radios, food, and other small, cheap things.
The company I'm currently sited at has just cranked the security up a bunch, requiring passes to get hardware out of the building. They keep catching people trying to duck out with a laptop that's clearly not theirs. About one per week.
The thief is usually someone about four desks away from where the laptop was sitting.
He's a good guy - he's done a lot of good work and his founding of GNU, contribution to all sorts of major projects that have been core of Free Software and Open Source, never mind the GPL, have been fantastic.
But Stallman's views on Intellectual Property as just expressed do not represent my belief in Copyright (if you don't have Copyright, then you don't have the GPL), and I'm tired of people thinking that Stallman is representative of the ideals of Free Software / Open Source community as a whole. Of course I know that people who decide to look deeper into the community have discovered that most of us have a much more open attitude, 'use what works best' - if that's commercial software, so be it.
And, of course this rant of mine comes from having read Lars' commentary on the community, but, if he's managed to create such a view of us from just ESR's and RSM's web pages, we need to do something. I'd like to point out that, if you got to the end of the page, he actually managed to illuminate some good things.
Anyways,
The problem is that when stuff like this shows up in the mainstream press, everyone at the top of the food chain thinks we're all Zealots, even though the opposite is the case. We need to stand up and say that we like good software, that authors of _anything_ deserve compensation for their work (as they see fit), and that ESR and RSM are not representative of the community as a whole.
Whew. So much for all my Karma Whoring, but I just had to say something.
Cyano.
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
One recent story that might deserve Slashback treatment is the potato-powered web server. As explained in a few articles in The Register, it was a hoax. A astounding number of organizations were taken in by it, including the venerable BBC and numerous other supposedly quality news organizations. A bit more skepticism could not hurt... (OK, so I thought it was genuine too, but at least I can hide behind the excuse that I am not a news organization. :-))
---
Felix qui potest rerum cognoscere causas
You do have a point. I've grown rather suspicious of the hacker vs cracker thing, because I think the two definitions of "Hacker" are related. Many hackers of yore were "crackers" too. Steve Wozniak was a phreaker, for example.
It's clear that "piracy" is a word coined by software vendors to describe just what they were upset about. Remember, they were on the ropes in the 1980s, when executible code could not be copyrighted.
On the other hand, what were the pirates of yore? They were a small group of people who made their own law, using the superiority of their position to extract gold from others. Sounds more like the RIAA (CD prices, DVD Forum (mandatory advertising) and the creation of the DMCA to me.
That counter example would hold if the thief walked up to your cars, saw your CDS, and used a Magic HTML Ray-Gun, to make copies of yours while leaving the originals. Later, at a party, he was laughing with his friends about what crap music you listen to. But since he didn't do that, I don't think that is a good counter example. Thanks for playing, you win the Slashback Door Prize. Access to damn near every recording in the modern era. (put together by the poeple of Earth in UNDER 1 YEAR, Great Library eat your heart out.) But remember, you have to share, and you can't sell them, that would be stealing, IMHO.
--
+&x