Slashdot Mirror
Politicians, Napster, And The Invention Of The Net
sdo1 pointed us to the major candidates take on napster. Here's Bush and here's Gore. A phenomenal number of submissions have arrived regarding
Gore's invention of the Internet (mostly surrounding the fact that Vint Cerf credits Gore as being the most influential politician in its creation). And lastly is a series of more techie oriented interviews
with Nader and Gore (well, Gore's advisor anyway) that is running on Wired.
Bush decided not to take a stand as usual. Gore applied the question to Tennessee and brought up the history of radio and copyright infringement and his involvement. I'm glad Gore at least didn't take credit for inventing Napster or Snickers for that matter.
Own j00! - if you "own" something you own have legal rights to it. Whereas "property" has it's roots in tangible things and posessions.
The roots of both words are different. "own" being legal or moral, "property" being your estate. Meaning the original poster meant "Intellectual Property" was a misnomer.
Though after you consider that language is rather liquid, and the terms have mixed somewhat, and that I'm just a dumbass trying to read into a few words, well... it's only a guess.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Just because it's been around a while doesn't make it "all right." Character assassination is the dirtiest of dirty tricks and about as morally responsible as getting your daughter's Girl Scout Troop hooked on crack. Yes, I hate both of the men in question, but I would never resort to distortion of the truth to make either of them look worse than I can make them look by simply dissemination the real truth about them (like, for example, that Al Gore is a huge proponent of that nasty Clipper Chip thing and would almost certainly start pushing it if he got elected; he cares about how we feel about censorship about as much as Metallica cares how we feel about peer-to-peer file sharing).
Gore has benefitted from it before; now he is the victim of it. I'm sure Bush is the victim of a bit too (though that Agre article is lamentably pro-Gore). The point is that you pretty much can't believe anything the press says these days, and that the people of America are mostly sheep who can't do any original thinking or research for themselves and thus are at the mercy of whatever CNN spews at them as Truth. They see it on TV; they believe it; they pass it on to the people who somehow didn't see it on TV and are believed when they do so as if they were the original source of the information to begin with. "Oh, well, I saw it on (CNN|MSNBC|ABC News|CBS News|NBC News|20/20|Nightline|The Rupert Murdoch Propaganda Network) so it must be true!"
That's what I'm trying to prevent. People need to learn that the media has opinions just as biased as the rest of humanity (being humans themselves) and are under the control of a very very few, very very powerful moguls who are more inclined to protect their peers and the very few people who might possibly have some power over them (the other moguls and almost all politicians), and thus themselves, by spreading propaganda instead of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Objective journalism just doesn't exist anymore in mainstream society. Yes, there are a few websites here and there with Truth on them, but they're so swamped by the ones that spew garbage that you'd never notice them unless someone pointed them out to you.
So here I am. Pointing things out to you. Things you would probably never be exposed to if left to your own devices and media outlets. I do this in the hope that you will learn something, even if that something is only that you mustn't believe something just because it was said by a "trusted, respected" news source like CNN.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Rush, and the Tragically Hip (as well as Barenaked Ladies, Great Big Sea and Alanis Morissette) are from Canada, not mainland Europe.
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
z o/starwars_1.html
n a_2.html
o olstandards_1.html
s s_1.html
l thcare_1.html
c hers_1.html
e less_1.html
m ing_4.html
This seems to be the whole point of the article, and this is completly untrue! I submit to you the results of these recent Reuters/Zogby polls:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-ballistic Shield Favored:
http:/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001017/
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001017/zo/chi
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001017/zo/sch
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001016/zo/cla
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001016/zo/hea
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001013/zo/tea
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001012/zo/hom
Bush-Cheney Position Preferred on Global Warming Treaty:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001011/zo/war
It's rather obvious that the majority agree with Bush's policies. The statement above about the public favoring Gore's policies only displays sloppy reporting, the same kind that allowed the "invented the internet" story to get way out of proportion.
However, most believe that Gore is intelligent while Bush is dumb. A quick look at the facts show that while Bush was no straight A student, he did considerably better than Gore in undergrad school. Gores third semester at Harvard yielded straight C's with one D, worse than ANY semester Bush had at Harvard. Gore also flunked out of grad school with 5 F's out of 8 classes, and dropped out of Law school while failing. Obviously, the man is not smart, he is just better spoken than Bush. Bush certainly held his own in the debates, even coming across MORE intelligent than Gore at times.
We also all know Bush is a cocaine user right? Well, no, that was an invented story as well. We DO know he used to have a drinking problem, and didn't like to talk about it. Once, when a reporter was asking him about his, she also asked him if he did drugs. He refused to answer, so it seems everyone assumed he was a cocaine user. This is the kind of assumption that the democrats were so opposed to when it applied to Clinton (well, until the assumptions were proven true).
My point here is, Bush is just (if not more) as subject to rumor and lies as Gore, only the majority of the public SUPPORT his policies. THIS is why he is in the lead.
Finkployd
The future of technological issues is a huge issue, but it's not the only one. Surely you have opinions on abortion, affirmative action, corporate control of politics, gun control, social security, taxation, foreign affairs policy, trade regulation, or education?
If you insist on voting only on the technology issues, then look at the candidates' overall profile and don't forget there are more than just two candidates.
Like the way things are heading? Vote Gore.
Want more corporate influence? Vote Bush.
Like filtering software? Vote Buchanan?
Want AOL, Microsoft, and the other big bullies to get their paws off the internet? Vote Nader.
Sitting out of the elections and and not voting is the lazy person's version of an ineffective protest. Brilliant strategy:
"You politicians had better shape up, 'cause if you don't, i'll do nothing and say nothing about it!"
If you don't vote, don't bitch when you get screwed by a President you didn't vote for because you didn't vote against him either!
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Well, there must be *something* causing the media to keep repeating provably false assertions. If it isn't bias or coercion, what could it be?
The problem with the media as a whole is that it's far far too powerful for several reasons; (1) everyone instantly believes everything they hear from any published news source; (2) the owners of these news sources have their own agendas and opinions and biases and thus just cannot have their own news programs going against these biases and agendas; (3) the owners of these news sources are very rich and very powerful and have friends who are very rich and very powerful, which means they're *always* going to be willing to subvert, warp, mangle, spindle, and mutilate the truth so that it favors the viewpoints of anyone who happens to be in power over them (first), themselves (second), and their friends (third). This mixture cannot help but lead to gross misrepresentation of facts (and lies AS fact) on the news programs that they as a group control (which is, at last count, all of them except for a few Access Television programs in various cities).
And yes, I applaud you for not quibbling about semicolons. Too many others do, though... as if it's their only means of attacking a post they don't like. Poor Jon Katz...
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
This is one of those pieces of doggerel that got repeated with such regularity that it became truth without ever being based in fact. It was an exaggeration made by Anti-Gore advocate Declan McCullagh, which he shamelessly promoted at every opportunity.
The "smoking gun" quotation was, in fact, that Al Gore, during his tenure in the Congress, "took the initiative in creating the Internet." This was, in fact, the truth. Gore spearheaded efforts to fund NSFNet, and he (and other tech-savvy folk like Newt Gingrich) took a leadership role in getting funding for and support for net-related projects.
Much quibbling has occurred in the use of the words "took the initiative." There can be no mistake of the meaning Gore intended: in the same paragraph, he discussed many other legislative initiatives in the same context. My Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines initiative, particularly as used in this context, to refer to a form of legislative action.
The deconstruction of a brief phrase taken out of context, and the shameless repetition and exploitation of it by Declan, Armey and other partisans led to the present situation, where it is no longer even questioned whether Gore claimed to invent the internet.
The cost of blinding yourself to truth is that others can define it for you. Don't let this bullshit continue. Question everything. Even this response, until you are satisfied you know who was telling the truth, and who was lying.
While anti-Gore partisans are fond of talking about Gore's alleged prevarications, one must consider carefully the irony of the falsehoods the partisans themselves have propagated.
The idea of being able to get rich and famous... making it as a rebel and becoming a millionaire...
How can you consider said rock musican a rebel when he/she has sold out to the record labels to make those millions? You can either be a rebel or a sellout, but not both...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
-Dave
The New Science of Character Assassination
Phil Agre
15 October 2000
You are welcome to forward this article electronically to anyone for any noncommercial purpose.
The past ten days will go down as a turning point in American history. This is what it's like when the far right is taking over your country: the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character. A story in today's (10/15/00) New York Times states openly what has been clear all along, that this campaign of character assassination has been planned and executed over a long period by the Republicans.
--Story Link--
Character assassination is, of course, nothing new for Republicans, who mastered the art in the days of Richard Nixon. What's new is that the press constantly repeats the lies. Not just once or twice, not just the occasional slip, but over and over and over.
Let us consider the New York Times story in detail. Written by Alison Mitchell, it describes Al Gore's abject apology for two trivial and much-exaggerated errors in the first debate as "the culmination of a skillful and sustained 18-month campaign by Republicans to portray the vice president as flawed and untrustworthy".
The New York Times discerns four landmarks in this campaign, and they are as follows:
... in December 1997 ... the [Republican National] committee announced it had started a
contest to come up with a slogan for Mr. Gore after he told reporters that the hero and heroine in
the novel "Love Story" were modeled after him and his wife, Tipper. (Erich Segal, the author,
soon said that his protagonist, Oliver Barrett IV, was only partly based on Mr. Gore, while Jenny
Cavilleri had nothing to do with Tipper Gore.)
In this case, the RNC's claim was false. Gore had not told anyone that Love Story was based on him and his wife. Rather, he had mentioned a newspaper article that had inaccurately said that, and was carefully to say that he only had the article's word to go on. Observe that Mitchell repeats the RNC's false account, and then (following the longstanding convention) makes it sound as though Segal was contradicting Gore, when in fact he was defending him. The false "Love Story" store continues to be repeated to the present day.
--Story Link--
So when Mr. Gore said in an interview with CNN in March 1999 that "during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet", Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, issued this mocking statement: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the paper clip".
The problem, of course, was that Gore's claim was correct. As the Internet's scientific leaders attest, often heatedly, Gore recognized the significance of the Internet very early, and took the initiative in doing the political work and articulating the public vision that made the Internet possible. His sentence, which is often not quoted in its entirety, makes perfectly clear that he was talking about the work he did in the context of his Congressional service, and that he is not claiming, ridiculously, to have done the technical work as well. Mitchell shades the story by omitting the Republicans' (and media's) most common distortion of the matter, that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. This falsehood has been repeated on literally hundreds of occasions, and George W. Bush routinely uses it in his speeches.
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
On the day Mr. Gore announced his candidacy in Carthage, Tenn., his family's hometown, Jim Nicholson, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, had a more elaborate stunt. He rode in a wagon pulled by mules to the hotel on Embassy Row in Washington where Mr. Gore lived for much of his youth.
"He has tried to pass himself off as this hardscrabble, homespun central Tennessee farm boy and that is not what he is", said Mr. Nicholson, playing off the fact that Mr. Gore had told The Des Moines Register that he had learned to slop hogs and clear land on the family farm. Friends later told reporters that Mr. Gore's father had kept him on a backbreaking work schedule during summers on the family farm.
The problem, again, is that Gore's claim was true. He did work on his family farm as a child. This time, Mitchell admits that the Republicans were making it up. But she still shades the story by making it sound as though the truth hadn't come out until later, and as though the contrary view rests solely on the word of Gore's friends. In fact the childhood farm chores had been extensively reported for a decade. The false claim that Gore had lied about the chores was repeated on many occasions in the press.
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
The Republicans got help as well from an unexpected source. When the Democratic primary fight became bitter, former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey insisted that Mr. Gore had deliberately distorted his policy positions in what he called a "pattern of misrepresentation". At one point, Mr. Bradley spat out, "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?"
The problem is that Bradley is endlessly quoted to this effect without any attempt to determine whether he is right. In fact Bradley often wrongly accused Gore of distorting his positions.
And that's it. That, according to the New York Times, is the story of the Republicans' campaign to paint Al Gore as an embellisher. The New York Times cites four accusations, all of them false, and in every case the New York Times either repeats the false accusations as truth or else provides misleading accounts of them.
The New York Times' article is not an aberration. The list of false attacks on Al Gore's character that have been circulated in the media for the last two years is extraordinary. In some cases, as in the ones (mis)cited by the New York Times, Gore is accused of lying when he was actually telling the truth:
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
In other cases, Gore's words are twisted, misquoted, or simply made up to make him sound as though he were making a claim that he was not making. For example, some publications have even claimed, falsely, that Gore literally uttered the words "inventing the Internet".
--Story Link--
There are many others:
--Story Link--
Was this simply a mistake on Lehrer's part? Okay, but Lehrer made his "mistake" in the context of rebuking Gore for his own miniscule mistakes in the first debate.
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
In yet other cases, Gore made a trivial error that has been exaggerated by his critics, and the exaggeration has been falsely attributed to him. Such is the case with the school in Florida that Gore cited in the first of his debates with George W. Bush.
--Story Link--
These are just a few examples among many. People make mistakes all the time. Al Gore is one of them, and it's surprising that an army of opposition researchers hasn't come up with more substantive errors after fact-checking a whole life of public statements. So is George W. Bush, whose errors during the two debates so far have been dramatically worse than those of Gore. To start with, Bush falsely implied that the Europeans have no troops in Kosovo, when in fact they have tens of thousands, and that the United States has significant numbers of troops in Haiti, when it does not. And he made numerous false statements:
That is just a partial list of Bush's "mistakes" in two ninety-minute debates, and it doesn't include the dubious numbers he quoted from Republicans in the Senate or the mess he made of education, taxes, Social Security, and the Middle East. Nor does it include the "mistakes" that littered his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, or the especially egregious "mistakes" of his brutal campaign against John McCain in South Carolina, and so on.
--Story Link--
With only a few exceptions (like the one just cited), the press has gone to great lengths to cover up or minimize Bush's false statements. Press coverage of the first debate focused overwhelmingly on Gore's two comparatively trivial errors and on endless suggestions that Gore was rude for having sighed several times.
--Story Link--
Of course, the sighs were often exaggerated by turning the volume up. (Falsely calling someone a liar, as Bush did several times, is not rude?) Pundits bizarrely praised Bush for his command of the issues after the first debate despite his lengthy catalog of errors:
--Catalog Link--
And the 10/5/00 Washington Post buried the Democrats' list of Bush errors at the end of a long story about Bush's accusations against Gore.
The problem is systemic. A reporter for a British newspaper, the Observer, was struck at the completely different approaches of the reporters covering Gore and Bush, and reported a disturbing incident in which a Washington Post reporter well-known for her open hostility to Gore held a toy gun to his head.
--Story Link--
Indeed, press coverage of Gore has been spun in a strongly negative fashion for a long time.
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
--Story Link--
The press, following the lead of Republican "investigators", has repeatedly falsified and spun the famous Buddhist temple event, among others.
--Story Link--
They have also falsified and exaggerated Gore's performance in earlier debates, thereby creating a caricuture of him as a vicious attacker.
--Story Link--
Yes, the press has suggested that Bush is not mentally competent to run the country. But it has not fabricated huge amounts of evidence to support this charge, and it has not routinely used vocabulary that is remotely as harsh as that used against Gore. You have rarely seen the media call Bush a "moron" or "idiot", but Gore has routinely been called much worse. Here is a very partial list:
(I am citing the Daily Howler for most of these examples so that you can read some analysis of them. But the Howler provides precise citations for the originals, which should be easy to look up.)
Indeed, Bush's alleged mental incompetence is often tacitly used to excuse his falsehoods -- he doesn't know what he's talking about, so he can't be lying. Or Gore is accused of a "pattern" of false and exaggerated statements, but then Bush escapes the same accusation for the simple reason that nobody bothers to gather Bush's false and exaggerated statements in one place.
This is just the press. We're not even talking about the conservatives on the Internet that have been circulating long lists of Gore's supposed lies and exaggerations -- most of which are, of course, themselves lies or exaggerations, including garbled and embellished versions of the already false versions in the press. Some of these lists are credited to the RNC, but of course it is hard to know for sure.
The new science of character assassination, then, has several components:
But it's not just that. It is not surprising that Rupert Murdoch's media properties, such as Fox and the New York Post, publish smears against people who disagree with Murdoch's far-right views. But it can hardly be an accident that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press have all assigned reporters to the Gore campaign who write, day in and day out, the same sorts of exaggerated smears. To be sure, the press is not unanimous in spreading Republican lies as truth; the contrast between the NYT/Post/AP axis and the calm reporting of the Los Angeles Times could hardly be greater. But the Post, Times, and AP, all well-connected and widely syndicated, set the tone for the press as a whole. The fix is clearly in, and these establishment media operations are clearly down with it. They see which way the wind is blowing, and they don't want to get left behind.
A kind of coup is in effect, continuing the pattern of the Whitewater hoax and impeachment. If the far right succeeds in its campaign, then the incoming government will be staffed by people who are trained in the new science of character assassination. It's all they know. And having destroyed Al Gore, they will come after the rest of us.
Copyright (c) 2000 by Philip E. Agre.
All rights reserved.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Phil Agre, a professor at UCLA sent out a message on the Red Rock Eater mailing list debunking the "Gore invented the Internet" myth. He doesn't seem to have it up on his web site yet, so I've put up a temporary copy
Try to imagine what the country would be like today if we had a republican president as well as a republican house and senate for the past 6 years.
A very scary thought indeed.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
It's all about setting a reasonable threshold. I know that for my own stuff, I prefer it to be downloaded, so I won't encode it at 320kbps nor would release the wav file because its simply too big. Actually the threshold should be set per tune, but anyway, that's what vbr's for.
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
The things you say are only true if you believe that Napster-like products are hurting sales.
Personally, I believe that napster-like products will increase the revenue stream that actually makes it to the artist. It reduces the power of the record companies.
The whole concept of "throwing a vote away" is pretty much akin to FUD in my mind. Why do you ask the question? Are you implying that if he doesn't vote for the same candidate you are that he is wasting a vote? Are you implying that if he doesn't vote for a front-runner he is wasting a vote?
A vote is a person's choice. Making a decision should never be considered wasteful.
I dunno. I suspect the candidates didn't write the answers -- I'm sure they "spoke" the answers. They sound more like spoken answers than written answers.
... heh ... well, we're gonna explain what makes a good leader, heh heh, because, er, as you know ... a good -- the best leaders lead, yeah, they lead, and you know leading is important when, uh ... heh ... when you're a leader... heh heh.
But I must say that Bush's answer is vintage Shrub: lotsa words but completely devoid of content. Kinda like the dazed-and-confused look he had at last night's debate: eager for the attack but, um, we're not really sure about the specifics yet, Jim, so, er, we're just gonna explain why, ah, why
In all fairness, Gore's answer to the Napster controversy isn't much better but at least he indicates how the issue will (I'm 100% sure) be solved: licensing. Maybe the licensing is something Napster, Inc. will pay. Maybe it's something that will be passed onto the consumers.
But I'm sure -- I'm positive, in fact -- that licensing (ala ASCAP) is how Napster will ultimately be resolved.
So they both came out half-heartedly for Napster. Sort-of. That shouldn't be enough to get any of your votes. As internet-savvy people, and those who respect the power and influence and IMPORTANCE of the Internet, you cannot allow either of these two men into power.
Bush still believes that the dark forces of the Internet somehow cause children to manufacture their own guns and shoot down their neighbors puppies. All this while viewing FAR too much pornography.
Gore still believes that the entertainment industry needs to be policed and regulated so that we are able to live our entire lives without seeing one good movie or one entertaining website.
Don't let either of these two men fool you, neither supports the Internet (even if they did invent it).
--
RumorsDaily
we don't care about "you, as a musician". we've already heard from 244000 other "musician tekkies" who don't care if they ever make a dime from their music (which is ironic siince almost none of them would have anyway). We've heard from so many of these miserable fucks that plinking down a statement regarding your personal altruism is no longer honorable. Instead it is *karma whoring*.
What we care about, at least in this particular discussion, is what Bubba g and Algore think about it all. Since we are about to empower one of them as the supreme executive dude and all.
the whole world will hear what they have to say... on a daily basis.
"The idea of being able to get rich and famous while partying, smoking, drinking and guitar playing, making it as a rebel and becoming a millionaire while giving the finger to the capitalistic society is what drives most rock musicians to be great, you need that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for motivation. "
--how ironic that the potential for getting rich would drive someone to work hard and produce something of quality. that pretty much defines capitalism.
> It's kind of like when you go to a party, and everyone snorts off the same mirror."
Damn me, that's the definition of a server, not peer-to-peer sharing. I'll get back to you as soon as I get home and consult my copy of High Tech Made Easy: Real-Life Explanations for Politicians and Other Dummies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
While not DIRECTLY on topic, this post has to do with music online.
A few weeks ago, I downloaded the Papa Roach CD from Napster, because I heard it was good. It was, very good in fact. Based solely upon what I obtained illegally, I bought the CD, because it was worth my money. The same thing happed with Limp Bizkit's new CD, Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water. It rocks, so I wanted to show my support to the artist. (Heh.)
Before I came across Napster, however, I was forced to make music-purchasing decisions based solely upon what I heard on the radio. Sure, ONE of the groups songs might be good.. but what happens if the rest of the CD is crap? (Such as 'The Offspring - Americana') I never listen to Americana, because it sucks. (IXNAY was excellent however.) This is where the problem lies.
I don't know how it works in the states, but here in Canada, you can't simply return a CD because it is bad. The only way you can return it if it is either 1) un-opened, or 2) defective. Either way leaves me royally pissed off. I want my $20 back for Americana.. I don't listen to the dam thing.
------------
CitizenC
don't be silly! slashdot gets international trolls! silly ameri-centric you...
---
I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age, nerds are in.
They're still in, aren't they?
---
I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age, nerds are in.
They're still in, aren't they?
Gore applied the question to Tennessee
:)
:)
I can't remember where I heard this, but it was a few years back... Heck, I'm not even sure it's true, but it's funny.
When one group of settlers was looking for a place to build their town, they asked a local Indian tribe about what they thought was a fairly good area across a nearby river.
The Indians told them that they did not want to live there; that land was cursed.
The settlers, of course, ignored this advice, and built there anyway.
That was Nashville, the home of country music, which is obviously the curse the Indians spoke of...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The President has no power to legislate (modulo the unconstitutional "executive order," which really ought to be abolished) and he has no power to control how much of your money Congress wants to spend.
The President can (in theory) veto spending bills until one that suits him is put before him, but due to the fact that most spending is done in omnibus-type of bills this doesn't happen very often.
The "executive order" only applies to the executive branch, which the legislative branch has very little control over (mainly funding). Harry Truman integrated the Armed Forces with an executive order, which was his constitutional right as he was the chief executive. Congress could try to change the effect of an executive order through legislation but oops, here comes that pesky veto again!
I suggest you take Political Science 101...
The fact is that men and women have ALWAYS had the "right" to decide whether to reproduce: they could simply abstain from sex.
ROTFL!!! Or to put it in your words: The world doesn't work that way.
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Bwaaah ah ah. No matter how outrageous your sarcasms are, there's always a chump to take it seriously.
So you want names, smartie? What about Air, Laurent Garnier? Just off the top of my head.
As for good stuff you'll never hear about besides here: Tricatel, worldwide specialists in lounge music, featuring Valérie Lemercier and Michel Houellebecq. 'course you won't get those on MTV. Eh eh eh. Oh oh oh. Oh well it's funny but you won't get it. Too bad.
--
>160kbps and a CD track, though. Maybe I've just
>got bad ears.
More likely you have shitty audio gear.
When I Napster a track, and like it enough to keep, I make a point of tracking down the CD (given the RIAA/metallica's attack on the internet tho, I only buy USED CDs now); because if you have a *REAL* stereo with GOOD speakers, you *CAN* tell the difference.
Truth be told, though, on the Altec Lansing speakers hooked to my computer, or on the $5 cheapo headphones I toss in my laptop bag, *I* can't tell the difference either. But I use my Mac at home for SAMPLING music to decide if it's worth purchasing; and my laptop for music at work, where I can't really bring in any gear.
But on a *REAL* sound system, the difference is painful. And the computers of >99% of the populace don't count.
Sorry, but that Soundblaster (or compatible) card != a McIntosh tube amp.
Nor are those POS Labtec speakers in the same league as a proper set of Bose speakers.
Your $5 Koss headphones from K-Mart? Thanks, but I'll keep my Sennheisers, thank you very much.
Oh, and do you even want to CONSIDER all the extraneous electronic noise inside your average computer case, fscking up your audio?
One would think that at least metallica themselves, if not their masters at the RIAA headquarters, would know all this.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
----
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet
The full phrasing is important because the statement clearly is talking about what he did as a congressperson. He took the initiative over other Congresspeople to create the internet. (I never stated that he the quote meant a legistlative "initiative". Just that he took the Congressional initiative in creating the internet). There may have been many other people who had taken initiative to create the internet, but Gore took the inititive as a congress person.
According to the Internet Timeline, in 1986 the NSFNET was just created with a backbone of 56Kbps, but Vint Cerf acknowledged that "As far back as 1986, [Gore] was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore". In 1986, the internet was far from done. It was still being created. It can be said that it is still being created, but it can eaily be said that Al Gore played an important part in creating the internet. Not the first internet, but the internet, the one you are using right now.
I'll probably be moderated down again for stating this opinion, but I really don't care. I am rather sick of the media falsifying and cut quoting statements by Gore. For a longer disection of many Gore "lies," there is another good article on snopes.
-no broken link
I don't think a country where they had to introduce legislation to force radio stations to play music from local artists can be said to have any kind of "talent" at all.
Whereas a country which has to put "Parental Advisory" stickers on records and where radio stations have to censor "offensive" (= one occurence of 'fuck') songs to keep their license has a LOT to tell the world about freedom of speech and talent.
--
Intellectual property is a misonomer. You can't own it. Its not property!
Al Gore and the Internet
The New Science of Character Assassination
campaign lunacy
BTW, a vote for Bush means a dismantling of all kinds of environmental controls: smog/pollution controls, the superfund project, decimating natural treasures for corporate greed, overturning the recent designations of national treasures all over the country that would protect those areas from development, etc., etc.
-c o r e
WebWhiteBlue is totally borked. Did Slashdot already eat the bandwidth?
I don't know why political news is even a big issue in the media at all. These canadates mirror each other's view, probably the least interesting of all political tactics.
I want my NBC, PBS, and CNN back!
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
If the poor stay poor even if they ARE getting resources from the government, then obviously this is not contributing to the overall "health" of the society and the strategy needs to be changed.
Whether that involves using propaganda & incentives to excite motivation, or merely making opportunities in the form of education available, is a matter of experimentation & implementation. The goal is still the same: improving the health of the society as a whole.
What a bunch of bullshit. The TRULY poor don't have the resources to do anything but try and survive. Without help or a lucky break, they don't have a chance in hell of changing their circumstances by themselves, whether or not they "take responsibility" for themselves.
What I find really hypocritical are those people who like to think that the poor cause and can always take care of their own problems, and that the rest of the society has no obligation to help them out. Oh wait, that's somebody just like YOU - huh, imagine that.
A utilitarian ethic based on the health of the overall society is a shallow, depraved thing? Is this kind of like the shallow, depraved attitude of abandoning the poor because you believe they're all selfish greedy bastards who should be allowed to starve to death so that you don't have to pay any taxes to help them out?
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Because its their leadership or lack thereof that oftentimes sets the stage for whatever happens. Clinton's 1993 tax increase proposal (roundly well-hated by most) did a lot of the work toward eliminating the deficits. But we also have to consider a booming economy (generating additional tax revenues) that resulted from lower interest rates and freed up capital from paying down the debt and the Internet (helping to drive new efficiencies and industries), that Gore actually did champion more than any other politician in existence! And the Congress did their thing with keeping expenses from rising as fast as they did before. Clinton didn't have to lead... he didn't have to propose policies that reduced the deficits... he didn't have to hire Robert Rubin... he didn't have to reappoint Alan Greenspan... he didn't have to work the way he did with a Republican Congress.
The point is: Clinton led us back to recovery. He didn't do all the work. But he (along with Gore) set the stage.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I have been a musician for several years now, and I was very pleased (as a techie) to see that I could listen to low-quality songs on my desktop computer. Heres what I have to say as far as paying for music is concerned:
art is free, as it should be.
music is something they've found a way to capitalize on, and they have.
If people turn down their money-guided mindsets and think about the music, they'll be more creative, and free. Which is why (as a musician) I dont mind if The whole world hears what I have to say.
It is extremely unlikely that the candidates, or at least Bush, really wrote those statements. I find it highly unlikely that the Governer knows what peer-to-peer file sharing means. Furthermore, both major US candidates propose that the artists should be compensated, but neither states how. Bush makes a blanket statement -- it is unfair to artists, and we need to compensate all of them. Meanwhile, Gore states that new solutions will develop naturally, as they did in radio. Both of them conveniently ignore the RIAA, MPAA, and other huge lobbying organizations. All in all, a very uninformitive answer to a pertinant question for geeks.
Yes, Bush trusts the public to make their own decisions with money and guns, but not with abortions or the internet. Yay freedom.
Gore trusts the public with abortions, but not with guns, money, movies, or the internet. Much better.
The real problem is that neither trusts the public.
They both trust the corporations to keep lining their pockets.
There's a lot of morons in the world who i wouldn't trust with a nerf ball, so i can't blame them on some issues.
I know i don't trust corporations, so i'm voting for Nader. At least he's not on their payroll.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
It's obvious by reading that that both candidates have only a minor grasp of the fundamentals involved in the Napster and related cases. The first candidate to appoint a *qualified* Technology Advisor will win my vote, until then I'm not voting. Even if it means sitting out the next 5 presidential elections.
Regards
I'm not sure Bush and Gore really want musicians paid (but I found both of their answers to the Napster question pretty evasive). I'm not sure what they want to do, besides use government power to please large political contributors -- a set of people more likely to include RIAA members than musicians, IMO.
/. readers to try it out, email me and I'll provide a bit to start. Thanks.
What I want to see is a "pot of gold" that helps musicians via a tipjar. There's plenty of talk of "cutting out the middleman" between consumers & musicians, but precious little gets done about it. e-gold isn't perfect, but it works. Now. I encourage
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Gore can be given credit for sponsoring some bills. This is infinitesimal (sp?) with all that was poured into the Internet--I was actually taught NII (National Information Infrastructure) and GII (Global Information Infrastructure) at Purdue.
Items I consider:
- How much money did the Baby Bells contribute?
- How many people developed it or for it?
IMHO, the Internet would have come along even if Gore had been against it from the beginning. I consider it a group effort and nothing more.You have obviously never developed anything significant in your entire life. Not anything that you cared about, anyway.
I have never seen such cynisicm in my life
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The candidates have agreed on these rules: I will ask a question. The candidate will ignore the question and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to undecided women voters. The opponent will then have one minute to respond by trying to frighten senior citizens into voting for him. When a speaker's time has expired, I will whimper softly while he continues to spew incomprehensible statistics for three more minutes. Let's start with the vice president. Mr. Gore, can you give us the name of a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her story in a way that strains the bounds of common sense?
Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we tenderly made love the way we have so often during the 30 years of our rock-solid marriage, the downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My opponent wants to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans. I, on the other hand, want to put the richest 1 percent in an iron clad lockbox so they can't hurt old people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to pay for gas so that she can travel to these debates and personify problems for me. Also, her poodle has arthritis.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush, your rebuttal.
Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day, hugging people, crying with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo opportunity exists. I want to empower those crying people to make their own decisions, unlike my opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.
Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs. Gov. Bush, if Slobodan Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in Yugoslavia, would you be able to pronounce his name?
Bush: The current administration had eight years to deal with that guy and didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing I would do about that guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies. And then Dick would present me several options for dealing with that guy. And then Dick would tell me which one to choose. You know, as governor of Texas, I have to make tough foreign policy decisions every day about how we're going to deal with New Mexico.
Lehrer: Mr. Gore, your rebuttal.
Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been keenly interested in. I served my country in Vietnam. I had an uncle who was a victim of poison gas in World War I. I myself lost a leg in the Franco-Prussian War. And when that war was over, I came home and tenderly made love to Tipper in a way that any undecided woman voter would find romantic. If I'm entrusted with the office of president, I pledge to deal knowledgeably with any threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an iron clad lockbox. Because the American people deserve a president who can comfort them with simple metaphors.
Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform the Social Security system?
Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim. That's why Joe Lieberman and I have proposed changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give $50,000 to every senior citizen without having it cost the federal treasury a single penny until the year 2250. In addition, my budget commits $60 trillion over the next 10 years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have drugs delivered free to their homes every Monday by a federal employee who will also help them with the child-proof cap.
Lehrer: Gov. Bush?
Bush: That's fuzzy math. I know, because as governor of Texas, I have to do math every day. I have to add up the numbers and decide whether I'm going to fill potholes out on Rt. 36 east of Abilene or commit funds to reroof the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.
Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.
Gore: I'm my own man. I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will fight for the working families of America, in addition to turning the White House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper and me.
Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by electing no one but Republicans.
Lehrer: Good night.
--how ironic that the potential for getting rich would drive someone to work hard and produce something of quality. that pretty much defines capitalism.
That was kind of my point.
One of the reasons that capitalism is such a successful meme is that the only real rule is that you become rich. If your path to riches is to sleep to noon, play guitar, smoke dope and sleep with groupies, and it works, hey, more power to you. You might even get mentioned in Forbes, like the Grateful Dead did all the time.
After reading these articles, I've come to a number of conclusions about candidates, internet, and government. I believe that Al Gore, did indeed have alot to do with the creation of the internet (even if he's a techno weenie, he still supported it, which is almost as important as creating it). I believe that Ralph Nader is against mega corporations becoming more and more powerful (which I can't necisarily disagree with). He believes that if bush is elected that he will make a small government (which I don't mind, and I don't believe Nader is opposed to... in theory) but, bush's reasoning for doing this is so that these megacorporations can take over. Nader most definately does not like that.
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, merely that he is not necessary - hawking
There was a "field hearing" in Utah about two weeks ago on Napster, held by Senator Hatch. Shawn Fanning (wrote the beast) was there, and a few others. A friend of mine wrote the piece above, and submitted it to slashdot, but to no avail. Give it a read; it's interesting. Among other things, it indicates Hatch supports Napster, but wants seems to want to see ASCAP like royalty schemes (which really isn't too unreasonable -- my only concern is once you get the big boys involved, it'll turn into a payola oriented media...)
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Seriously, vis-a-vis Napster, I'm reminded a bit of how Luther Campbell from 2 Live Crew wound up being a First Amendment case....
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
There's too many people complaining and not enough working on a solution. Try offering an alternative.
Nader is the alternative. He will reform the corrupt political system so that each person's vote matters and the people have more voice than the corporate $.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
And Gore has been funded by Occidental Oil: no less "beholden" than Bush.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down.
Don't be naïve. Clinton/Gore had no more to do with the present budget surpluses than Reagan did with the deficits. In case you haven't read anything about the Constitution in the U.S., it is Congress that establishes the budget. It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate (modulo the unconstitutional "executive order," which really ought to be abolished) and he has no power to control how much of your money Congress wants to spend. The most that could be said is that Reagan signed a Democrat Congress's budget laws (which was stupid) and Clinton signs a GOP Congress's budget laws (which, while not smart, is less stupid).
instead of giving Bill Gates and H. Ross Perot a big tax cut they don't need,...
This isn't about "needs"; it's about justice. And it is unjust for the wealthiest to be taxed at higher rates than those who have less. The rates should be the same for everyone without exception. THAT is what is just.
he'll use the money to give more kids a chance at college and possibly a techie career. That's a big win in my book.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
Women and men should have to right to decide if they want to reproduce.
Nice rhetoric, but that's not what you mean. What you mean is that anyone (including teens) should be free to have sex whenever, wherever, however, and with whomever (or whatever) they wish, without consequences. This is simple libertinism, and it's disgusting. The fact is that men and women have ALWAYS had the "right" to decide whether to reproduce: they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate). The world doesn't work that way.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
If memory serves, in the second debate Gore stated that he opposed raising the gasoline tax (Lehrer had asked about that, probably noting that it had been advocated in Gore's prior writings). That's probably a vital flip-flop...
("Yes! I'm going to make your gasoline even MORE expensive, because in the long run it's good for you! Muhahahahahahaha!" does not seem to be a smart thing to announce right now.)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"The Congress shall have the power...TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Art 1, Sec. 8
Note that the purpose of the intellectual property laws is the promotion of the useful arts--not the promotion of income for the creators of those useful arts. The focus is on the benefit the useful arts will bestow on the public, NOT the benefit that should be bestowed upon the artist.
I think most true artists (as opposed to "created" artists, i.e. boy-bands) would agree that their motivation in creating music is not money. Motivation flows naturally from the desire/need to express and create.
I am not advocating that artists should not be compensated for their work, but that there needs to be a shift in considering music as a commodity to a service and a subsequent modification in how artists are paid for their expressive creations. We have lost sight of the purpose of the copyright laws, over the past several years particularly, and new technology such as PtoP file sharing is providing an opportunity to reassess the benefits that laws are intended to promote. Are laws to promote the greatest benefit to the individual, or promote the greatest benefit to everyone?
I didn't wonder that there was no rebuttals to either Gore or Bush's comments. After all, they didn't say anything.
Although I think it is funny that they kept on talking about 'artists rights'...my Goddess, can they really believe that shit? Can they believe that anyone else can believe that shit? Artists aren't losing money on Napster, record companies are. That might sound like such an obvious fact, but obviously these presidential candidates feel like they can live in an alternative reality by using different words.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Compromise is great, but once in a while things have to just be changed, one way or the other.
OK, I'll bite. Both Clapton and Lennon had their heydays in times when Britain was ruled by a Conservative government. Britain has never really been a socialist country, although the Labour governments of the mid-60s and mid-70s definitely had socialist taxation policies...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Yes, I would also like to know! I'd assume that more "IT professionals" (whatever that really means) are considered wealthy by the government, so the last thing they would want would be Gore in office!
I just don't get it. If you're a techie, why don't you realize how much of a whore he is? He's just saying what the "working middle class" wants to hear.
If you make more than $40k a year, I suggest you vote for Bush if no other reason that to protect your own money! If Gore gets in, we'll be a socialist government in 4 years, and your hard-earned money will be going to support those in society who just choose not to work.
Why do you want the government taking MORE of your money?
--- witty signature
President of United States of America or any other country's leader is NOT a geek. He does not have to understand what OSS really means and what p2p is. There are much much more important issues than napster to be considered first, such as education, before american kids become the dumbest on the planet(well, some already are, and they troll on slashdot), environment protection, health care, tax cut, etc. heh, I could use a couple of extra thousands every year to go to vacation while the rest of the trolls moaning over their loss of access to mp3s on slashdot.
It is funny how many slashdotters look no further from the gigantic computer monitor right in front of them.
As usual, both the difference in philosophy and the practical near-identity between Bore and Gush shines in these campaign snippets.
Gush emphasizes intellectual property rights and money while Bore emphasizes balance between the interests of artists and the public.
Gush has basically answered the question. He'll do anything that is acceptable to the music industry, because its their property. Bore on the other, has also answered. Napster undermines the IP rights of artists and he will work to restore the balance. Suprise! This is basically the industry's pitch.
While Bore is commited to Big Bucks, Gush is commited to the Public Good. Too bad his idea
of the public good comes from Big Bucks' agitprop.
So what do you prefer, a foul-smelling dick or a soft-scented impotent?
Vote Nader!
PS. The "music industry" is an oxymoron!
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Being unfamiliar with the American elections I can't go into much details (just that I don't give these comments much credit since the candidates mostly tell you what you would like to hear) but it does remind me of an earlier /. article concerning shortage of people within the IT sector. Isn't it true that mp3's are wildely spread within this sector? If you want to be able to access them you'll need to know something about it or be influenced by it. Which makes me wonder; did these candidates just tell us that there is indeed a sense of truth in the stories about the shortage? Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, allways a good option, but just think of it; would a country of which its highest political 'leader' speaks heavily against the small things which make life & work more comfterble (I know, should grab the dictionary :/) (I like listening to internet radio at work) appeal to you? Dunno about you guys but if I'd hear that (and take the possible acitons into consideration) I'd think it over before going there armed with my mp3 player filled with some nice JPop / Anime tunes.
I am puzzled at the acrobatics Gore defenders do, such as talking about creating something that already exists. Get this: you can't create something that already exists. Sure, it was "far from done" in 1986, but you might as well apply that phrase to 1996 or 2006. It is constantly evolving, but it already exists. And it existed as early as 1983, as even Cerf acknowledge. And this Internet did not suddenly vanish and a new one appear to replace it: we are using the same Internet. Sheesh. Is it so hard to accept the fact that the Internet existed years before any Gore's act of "creation"?
Finally, I am well aware of the Snopes article. But the fact is, it does not even come close to defending the avalanche of nonsense coming from Gore. Al Gore pretty much brought all this criticism on himself: if he could only refrain from lying, none of this would be relevant. As it is, an article touching on a few alleged exaggerations of Gore's exaggerations (delicious irony there) will not do much against the numerous lies on file in his own words since 1984.
I think it's time this was finally cleared up once and for all. Gore actually invented genetic engineering, not the internet. In an attempt to create an Al Gore that appeared alive he accidentally created and evil clone that has spread all of these lies. Seriously though, it seems that both of the main candidates have some serious misconceptions about the internet. If you're going to vote for one of them I would put more weight into other issues. I don't think that either one could seriously screw the internet up no matter how poorly they understand it.
Has anyone checked out this 'Shawn Fanning' guy for a little purple tail-like thingy poking out of the back of his neck? Does he like to eat bowls of meal worms for breakfast? Hmmmmm...
...
What about Jack Valenti? Hmmmm....
They almost took over starfleet headquarters once
hmmmmm...
It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate...
.
This is a classic Republican dodge used to avoid taking responsibility for the ghastly horror which was the supply-side (A.K.A. "trickle-down") economics era. Supply-side economics was generally championed by wealthy conservatives to justify cutting taxes on the rich. High profile supply-siders include Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman as well as Republican politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. This economic policy and the tax cuts it inspired (as well as the crippling interest rate hikes and deficits which followed) were absolutely the brainchild of the right wing. The fact that they managed to push it through Congress without a legitimate chance to make the kind of spending cuts it would have taken to pay for it is a more a testament to bipartisan short-sighted political demagoguery than to the difference between the two parties themselves.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
A universally educated populace is in everyone's economic best interest, period. It keeps wages for medium-skilled labor low, for one thing; imagine if the simple ability to read and write commanded >$50,000/year. The information and service-based economy of today would not be tenable with the literacy rates that would arise from a lack of universal, compulsory, public education. Despite this, based on your post I believe I can safely say that it would be redundant at this stage to point out that there are those among the wealthy too short-sighted to pony up for public education on a voluntary basis. That's why it has to happen at gunpoint.
. . . they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences . .
You're right in a way (note that I am not the original poster and am not trying to speak for him or her), but not the way you mean. For one thing, I ain't getting any, haven't gotten any, and can't see myself getting any in the near or even remote future, so that's that as far as what I'm really after goes. However, I still consider nationwide abstinence to be laughably unrealistic (and you secretly do, too, if you understand a damned thing about human nature). The fact that you go on about consequences rather than murder betrays the fact that you care more about whether other people are getting any than you do about children. What you're really after is for nobody to ever get laid; I won't bother to speculate upon the reason for this. What I'm after is much less ambitious -- for people to have rights and control over their own bodies, without having consequences imposed upon them by deities in whom they don't believe.
. . . (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate).
Strange that someone who expresses such moral indignation over "profligate" sexual practices could have such a low opinion of an effort to find cures for diseases which are invariably FATAL. This is simple social Darwinism, and it's disgusting.
Your moralizing would be more respectable (though no less misguided) if you demonstrated any regard for human life whatsoever; however, your attitude is as unsurprising as it is pathetic. It is exactly this kind of arrogant disdain for the poor, for the sick, for those with different religious/moral views, for basically everyone, much more than the economics of the Reagan years, that has alienated much of the country from the Republican party. If this isn't a clever troll, and really does represent your beliefs, I humbly suggest you shut the hell up and stop embarrassing the people whom you're trying to support.
then we'll have to sue Microsoft for creating MSIE because it allows me to get files from all over the internet, and not just mp3's!
Actually the Windows Start > Find > Files or Folders... is even worse than MSIE because I can now search my LAN (or any other computer I have acceess to via smb) for mp3s! This feature sounds familiar, oh wait, it's called Napster. You are right, we'd better shut down Microsoft RIGHT NOW!
The fact that electing Bush will probably mean that rich people get to keep more of their money doesn't really motivate me to vote for him (I can see it motivating people with money but why people who earn less than 70K a year would vote for Bush by reason of this "tax cut" really astounds me).
a rts/charttalk%2040-87.pdf). Don't even get me started on how much it's going to hurt if we don't deal with the looming disaster that is Medicare/Medicaid.
I am also not really concerned that I won't see any benefit from either candidate's tax plan since I'm a single, unmarried woman without children. Paying down the debt and "fixing" social security so that MY generation (Gen X's) aren't hit with a 30-50% increase in social security tax rates when the baby boomers start retiring is of far greater concern to me (for more depressing numbers see http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/ch
But in the end it comes down to what I care about most - control over my own body and my own actions. Bush, who will appoint anti-choice Supreme Court Justices, is a far greater threat to my rights than Gore is. Money is really insignificant in the long run.
Tigris
The artist willingly signs a contract that provides rights to the publishing company; in turn, the publishing company handles numerous tasks ranging from advertising to duplication and distribution.
If the rights are usurped by J. Random User, the publishing company has gotten the shaft -- because it has not been compensated for what was purchased by it, in a voluntary transaction. The rights are the full basis for the contract.
Consequently, the artist's position has been weakened, because if the rights CANNOT be defended legally, then why should the publishing company buy them? It would, essentially, be paying something for nothing -- which is rather unbusinesslike.
That is, if distributing music without a license is legal, then why should Sony etc. *not* simply do the same thing -- take the artist's music and publish it without the artist's consent, and without compensation?
Now if an artist does NOT sign a contract, and chooses to distribute his music on his own, that's his right. But the rights are HIS to transfer or grant, and his alone.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Everyone gives Al Gore such a bad rap for "Inventing the Internet." I mean, come on, everybody knows it was Dr. Science!
France? they're idea of Rock and Roll is a joke.
Bah. What do you know about it? What does it prove besides that the USA has a stronghold on music distribution?
But phear not, we have the local likes of Britney Spears. Just without the boob job.
--
And indeed, the very protocol itself is designed to make the service easy to shut down in the event that Napster "loses" in court.
The "centralized server" model is what allows this quick-and-easy shutdown. As for the protocol itself, it's basically just a tweaked IRC protocol (RFC 1459).
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If you think that voting for anyone who is running in this election is throwing a vote away, then yes. I, and millions of other Americans, will go to the polls to throw our votes away.
If you mean that by voting for what I see as the least of a half-dozen or so evils, I'm throwing my vote away, then yeah, I guess what I'm doing.
If you mean that I'm voting for someone I don't like even though I know there's someone better in the running, you're dead wrong.
Why would a techie support Gore? I like this planet. Bush is beholden to big oil for his campaign chest, so he won't look at any energy source the oil companies can't somehow control.
Gore has money in 'big oil' as well. However, he seems willing to ignore that, as he has repeatedly called for an increase in gas taxes.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down. This keeps the economy booming.
Why are presidents always given the credit/blame for the work of others?
Please remember that the House of Representatives writes the budget, the president has some say in it, but quite often things are included that he doesn't like. The House, during the Reagan/Bush years was predominantly Democrat; thus they are primarily responsible for the huge deficits generated during those years. Yes, the president could have vetoed the budgetary package, but there is no guarentee what would have been returned afterwards would have been any better.
Clinton and Gore have had to deal with a predominantly Republican House and Senate, and under them the defecit has gone down, and indeed, a surplus is projected.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Bah. What do you know about it? What does it prove besides that the USA has a stronghold on music distribution?
But phear not, we have the local likes of Britney Spears. Just without the boob job.
You made my point nicely, equating Britney Spears with Rock and Roll shows just how out of touch with Rock and Roll the French really are. You now have zero credibility with me.
Had you mentioned Gwen Stefani, Slashdot darling Courtney Love, Tanya Deal or some other person that's making rock and roll instead of bubble gum pop, you'd have a point.
Considering the President can veto legislation I consider him pretty significant. Now if only Clinton had vetoed the DMCA instead of musing that it would have to hashed out in the courts while he signed it....
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Actually, this is the attitude that I understood YOU to be saying in your previous messages, that the welfare state isn't working and should be abolished. *My* point was that if the system aint working, you need to fix it. And from a government's viewpoint, the goal to keep in mind while fixing such a system is the longterm health of the society as a whole.
Common sense, and fits with what I've been saying about choosing a different strategy if the current one isn't working. It doesn't address the fact that you're going to have to use up SOME sort of resource to "educate" such people as to the society-friendly way to do things, and it's going to be the people who HAVE those resources who are going to have to pay for it. And it might be better for the longterm benefit of the society if government takes it from them, even if they don't want to give it. They probably won't be happy about it, but from a governmental viewpoint, their "happiness" does not trump the goal of the longterm health of the society.
You seem to be fixated on the idea that private is always better than public service. Get over it - it limits your solutions. The goal of any government is SUPPOSED to be the health of the society as a whole, which is not necessarily (and not likely) the goal of private institutions, whether or not they have labeled themselves as "charities".
As far as the number of people of who truly poor through no fault of their own - I'm sure it is to your benefit to think that there are only a very tiny number of these people, and that they should should be properly grateful that you deigned to give them some of your hardearned income. Of course, if they don't happen to do the proper bootlicking or don't quite agree with your way of looking at things - then why the hell should you help them out? Huh - maybe that's what a properly functioning government is for, to take care of health of the society as a whole, even if it inconveniences or annoys some of the individuals.
You still keep thinking that your "rights" trump those of the society as a whole. I'll keep on saying it, the government's responsibility is maintaining the longterm health of the society as a whole, not catering to the whims of individuals. What YOU want isn't necessarily what's best for the society as a whole, so the government doesn't have any obligation - and in fact would be abrogating its responsbility - to support your needs & desires over that of the rest of the society.
Oooooo - nice emotional rhetoric. Too bad it doesn't have any useful substance. Not to mention that you still don't have a clue what that "utilitarian ethic" really means (or maybe you do but just don't like the way it contradicts what YOU believe).
The people who "exercise" this kind of ethic are pragmatists. Their goal and _standard_ is the LONGTERM health of the society. They know that what's beneficial for the society as a whole, isn't necessarily going to be beneficial for some of the individuals. On the other hand, they'll understand that stomping all over too many individual liberties isn't going to help the health of the society either (given that the "health" of the society is some function of the health of the individuals).
This standard is a helluva lot deeper & rooted in reality than your so-called "standard" of right and wrong (which is probably defined by people who think like YOU, right?). Shallow-and-depraved pretty much describes people who define "right" and "wrong" to be for their own benefit, then use those definitions as a tool for excusing the harm that they inflict on society.
Well, I am generally socially liberal and fiscally moderate-to-conservative. Which puts me more in line with Gore than with any other candidate, including Nader. But what really solidifies my vote is the future of the supreme court: "Even while disavowing any anti-abortion litmus test, Republican nominee-apparent George W. Bush has said he will seek to appoint more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court." While these justices claim to want to follow the original intent, they seem to ignore the intent of James Madison regarding the rights of conscience. Additionally, when individual rights and liberties come in conflict with the powers of a civil authority, they almost always vote to support the civil authority. That is the biggest reason I'll be voting for Gore.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Then you need to listen to Rush, the Tragically Hip, or the Cowboy Junkies.
How many people heard Bush talking about "protecting" our youth during the debate last night! He mentioned everything from VChips in the TV to installing poorly designed censorware in Libraries and Schools and other "places that receive federal funding".
** ranting... **
I thought that Bush was supposed to be the candidate that "trusts Americans to do the right thing". Aparently we're only smart enough to spend our money wisely -- not smart enough to raise our children well. We need the help of government officials who know next to nothing about how poorly censorship really works to protect our children.
** ok done... **
I'm definately against any candidate that says outright that he's going to push to have sorely ineffective and counterproductive "protection" software as a mandatory install in areas that are some people's ONLY connection to the Internet. More of the same old "only those with enough money will be allowed access to all of the information" policy.
(Vote Gore!)
No I want the gov to take YOUR money!
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Some like Gore because of his techno-savvy connections. I think Hundt did a great job braving a debate with Nader. If I'm worried about being understood, I might just vote for Gore...
Unlike Gore, sharp as he may be, Nader would actually do something about that.
The OpenNap project and the Napigator server list demonstrate that the Napster servers are anything but a single centralized point of failure. To shut down Napster, the RIAA has to shut down the Napster, OpenNap, MyNapster, PowerNap, etc. networks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet
One important difference is the phrasing implies "Congressional inititive," not that he was the first ever to take the initiative in creating the internet.
An even more important aspect of this phrasing is that he used the word "creating", not "inventing". The phrasing implies that s a congressman, he promoted and passed bills that allocated budgets needed for the implementation of such a network. As Vint Cerf (often referred to as "the Father of the Internet") stated in an email to MSNBC:
VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator.
Bearing Vint Cerf's statements in mind, Al Gores claim to be the one who took initive in creating the internet is reasonable.-no broken link
Bush: Copied right off the cereal box. Probably info provided by a tech advisor.
Gore: Familiar with the concept without dwelling on particular technology.
Bush, perhaps incidentally touches on (creator) the idea there are more who would suffer losses (i.e. record companies.) Then again, the reference is broad and therefore vague. In terms of answering it, neither suggests a meaningful solution.
Bottom line: Which is preferable in this type of matter? Government interference or leaving the parties to work it out? (Keep in mind, they RIAA has a lot of influence in the Govt.)
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, I'm not voting for him (Go Green!) but I did watch the debate last night, and judging from body language, and the fact that he didn't dodge as many questions as Shrub, I'd say Gore is the better of the two. There was one point where he jumped off his stool and walked right up to Dubya as if he were going to punch him - I got very excited, and thought "man, if Al punches George, I may have to change my vote!" Some folks say Gore has no personality; well, that may be true, but he's been a politician for 24 years. That would suck the joy out of anybody. :-)
If you're not considering a third party, go for Gore. At least he can compose and deliver a complete sentence.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
CmdrTaco realy can't type his links
The link for the Gore "invention" of the Internet is bad...
So i look at the comments here.. mostly they seem to be "gore is dumb," "bush is dumber," and "they're both bloody morons." No one seems to have read the last link in the article.
You know, the one where Gore's advisor happily touts the fact that Clinton/Gore is in the e-commerce industry's pocket, while Nader rips him apart for supporting monopolistic business practices, pushing for more intellectual property and less privacy at home and abroad? And then Nader calls for more public support for OSS and argues against ICANN?
Oh, you missed that one. Too busy repeating campaign slogans and getting the first post i guess.
wisconsin does not exist.
I've always been pretty curious as to Nader's stance on tech, and the article, while it doesn't really give his core stances, certainly shows what he thinks about telecommunications and product bundling.
Mr. Nader complains about the bundling of cable and Internet services. This is a case of consumers getting more for more money; it increases consumer satisfaction.
'[M]ore for more money'. I wonder if that's a typo. Of course you're going to get more if you spend more money.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/daily/10/17/who _invented_internet.html is the real link; hopefully SlashCode won't the "insert random spaces" game with this post.
Bush = "However, I do believe we must find a way to apply our copyright laws to ensure that artists, writers, and creators can earn a profit from their creations, ".....
Pretty much the line we get from RIAA/MPAA - except we all know the artists will never benefit.
Gore = "Years ago, when radio was invented there was a huge controversy. How in the world are songwriters ever going to get protected when the songs are just broadcast over the radio? It's similar in some ways to the Napster phenomenon, and they came up with solutions. Now, artists are compensated every time a song is played on the radio. It ought to be easier, over time, to come up with a way that has a little bit of compensation for artists. I think we need to keep working on a compromise that allows Napster-type technologies to flourish but does not take away the artist's intellectual property."
This seems like Napster's solution - charge 20 million people a relatively insignificant monthly fee and you end up with a load of money.
The copyright laws definately could be challenged on constitutional grounds, but it would be a brave attorney to actually forward such an argument (at this point), and an even braver judge to give creadance to such an argument with such a depth of case law based on existing copyright law.
For such a fundamental change to occure, I believe that it must start at the grass-roots level and work its way up through congressional proposal.
If you are interested in a particularly intriguing lecture/discussion on the Napster/My MP3.com cases and intellectual property law generally see: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/futureofip/
Because most of the great music I listen to was made with the idea that the musicians would reap rewards from creating it.
Think about it, most rock stars come from capitalistic countries, and the ones that come from socialist countries (like Eric Clapton and John Lennon) emigrate to a capitalistic country without confiscatory tax policies as soon as they can.
Can you name any famous rock stars from a socialist country that make good music? Let's see Sweden, hmm, Abba and Ace of Base, nope, not good. France? they're idea of Rock and Roll is a joke. Russia? Nope.
The idea of being able to get rich and famous while partying, smoking, drinking and guitar playing, making it as a rebel and becoming a millionaire while giving the finger to the capitalistic society is what drives most rock musicians to be great, you need that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for motivation.
Yeah, Napster has the potential to cause America to lose it's lead in the Rock music biz by making artists lose their motivation, and if you didn't know, that brings a lot of cash into the country, I think it's right after aerospace, software and Hollywood.
That's a very comforting rationale - for everyone who's making a comfortable living. I'm sure that many poor young black men, in their vicious cycle of poverty & discrimination, are completely satisfied with your definition of "justice".
Government SHOULD exist to maximize the health of the society AS A WHOLE - and if the so-called "rights" of the extremely-minority privileged get a little bent, well that's too bad (as long as it's in a way that doesn't come back to bite the society as a whole in the long run).
'cause if the cost-benefit analysis says that the net gain of the society is more than your loss, then it's the right thing to do - for the society.
Of course, if the mechanisms of government have been hijacked for the benefit of a minority of society, rather than the whole, then you can start talking about "injustice" and actually mean something rational.
An anchor inside and anchor, good one.
Who Invented the what?
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Nader is extremely sharp on a wide array of topics of concern to the common Joe. He knows about telephone, cable, DSL. He's one sharp cookie.
two misinformed candidates, not actually answering the question, but rather dancing around it. if file sharing is wrong, then we'll have to sue Microsoft for creating MSIE because it allows me to get files from all over the internet, and not just mp3's!
Vote for your local McDonalds Fry Cook For President!
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
True, Bush said some pretty revolting things in that last debate about V-chips and censorship. But Al's views are not that different I assure you. Both candidates see the internet as a great tool to be used by industry and corporations to sell and provide stuff to you the CONSUMER! Both candidates will ensure that the same thing happens to the internet as has happened to radio and television before it.
The pesky knowledgable will be moved off to a small useless section of the net where they won't interfere with the daily business of Amazon, AT&T, MSNBC, Microsoft. This will be similar to the minimal section of the airways that Ham-radio operators are in now.
Both major candidates see the internet as this and don't give a fuck about Open Source, Freedom of Assembly (on any medium) or Copyright. If you want to vote for a candidate that is truly techie friendly try Harry Browne
Face it. The same way horrendous cooking is the complement to good music in English culture, horrendous music is the complement to good cooking for the French.
French Canadian rock, well, that's a whole different story. Hmmm. Gotta go listen to my Plume, Les Colocs, and Les Cowboys Fringants records.
"Central to the success of the Internet is the fact that it is based upon open, non-proprietary and non-monopolistic standards. Also, no single firm or cartel yet controls key Internet bottlenecks, such as last-mile delivery of Internet content. But all of these factors are constantly at risk by forces that want to control and monopolize various aspects of the Internet."
Why would a techie support Gore? I like this planet. Bush is beholden to big oil for his campaign chest, so he won't look at any energy source the oil companies can't somehow control.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down. This keeps the economy booming.
Taxes: Reagan ballooned the deficit with a big tax cut he couldn't pay for. Bush prosposes to do the same thing. Gore's plan is much more responsible; instead of giving Bill Gates and H. Ross Perot a big tax cut they don't need, he'll use the money to give more kids a chance at college and possibly a techie career. That's a big win in my book.
Gore is tied to the Religious right, which wants to outlaw abortion and, afterwards, birth control. I don't want to go back to the 1910's. Women and men should have to right to decide if they want to reproduce.
Lest this get too long, let me just say I was an adult during the Reagan and Bush presidencies and have no desire to go back to those times!
I'm surprised Gore didn't come right out and say he supports Napster. After all, he DID invent it!
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
I don't have a definitive source, but Gore's certainly the first person that I remember using that term. The term "Information Superhighway" always made me cringe, but I remember Gore using it to champion money for the internet since the early to mid '90s. If he didn't invent the term, he certainly popularized (do a Gooogle search yourself and see). Not one of his finest moments.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
A few month's ago, The Economist reported that Gore actually coined the phrase "information superhighway" years ago when trying to gain support for the Internet. Can anyone confirm/deny this?
Can I bum a sig?
You do realize that the president appoints Supreme Court and Federal Curcuit Court judges, don't you? That's probably the most major issue you could even think of. The supreme court is pretty much split half-and-half, and whoever gets elected will probably appoint two new judges, to tip the scales one way or the other. Read the September 9th issue of The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/index.mhtml?i=20001009 - the articles section) for just *how much* that matters.
The president does matter in that respect, and also his veto power. Try to imagine what the country would be like today if we had a republican president as well as a republican house and senate for the past 6 years.
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A
I'm not US citizen. But US sets very bad example that could affect my country too.
I see following pattern which is occur very often in IP debates. Concept Absence of profit is replaced with concept of Harm .
For example:
Artists will not get money for their creation when their musics are distributed on Nasper.is replaced with
Artists will loose money when their musics are distributed on Nasper.This is a big paradigm shift. It absence of profit that theoretically could be got is equated with loss of money. And music industry do not say that they are unable to get profit from internet, they say that they loose money on internet. It is like saying that cabs are loosing money becase of taxi.
The right of people to earn money in the way they like is not something that should be protected by government. They need to find way where other will wish to pay them. (I agree that money that people have already earned should be proteced.) It like saying that the beggar right for getting money from you should be protected by law because they like so. Beggars have too little money to lobby such law, but music industry seems to have money.
Artists will not die because lack of money while there are people that want to listen them. The only question how paying to them will work in the end. Current music industry way seems stops to work.
This was mentioned by Salon (or one of the other online mags) recently. Vincent Cerf backed Gore up because Cerf is a contributor to the DNC, has been invited to the White House during Clinton's reign, and seemingly sides with many DNC issues. So take his backing of Gore with a grain of salt, the man is a political lackey
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Sigh.... I know he didn't create the internet. You know it. And Al Gore knows it too. We all know that the quote was taken somewhat out of context.
The problem is that he'll say anything that sounds good at the time with no regard to the real truth. It happens over and over and over again with him. The James Lee Witt story. The cost of arthritis medication. There are dozens of other examples.
No, he knows that he didn't create the internet. But it sounded good at that moment, so he blurts it out as such.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
http://slashdot.org/A
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
They both dodged that question like true professionals! I don't know who to vote for -- they are both good!
OK, Bush (or Bush's staff) seems to be toeing the RIAA - we have to make sure artists and corporations get their due in new media - think SDMI, etc.
Gore (or Gore's staff) suggests that new media demand new solutions - his comments about compromise suggest (maybe) that he would favor something like the settlement Napster proposed - nominal fee, payed to evil ASCP.
Neither one is charming, but Gore is less disturbing....
Yes, that's the typical excuse given by the Left for their lack of self-control. They're very bad at controlling their own impulses, but they think that they nevertheless ought to take responsibility for controlling the lives of others.
:->
At least when liberals lose control they indulge in an orgy of sex and drugs. Conservatives indulge in a orgy of raping the environment, discriminating against minorities/gays/atheists/foreigners/etc. and destabilizing other countries by sending arms to underground right-wing death squads!!! (and you strict-constructionists out there, please tell me where in the Constitution it says that it is O.K. to meddle in the affairs of other countries).
They don't care that this lack of self-control reveals that it would be quite stupid to entrust them with any power whatsoever (this goes for quite a few of those idiot Republicans in Congress, too).
You are right about idiot Republicans!
The reason the system exists is because people WANT government and they WANT socialism. Think of it, when was the last time a Republican came out against social security? Isn't social security the utimate in socialism (i.e., income transfer aimed at redistributing wealth in at attempt at equalizing society)?
People also want clean air, interstates without potholes, disease-free meat, etc., etc., etc. Get rid of government and everything goes to hell. How can you be sure that that burger you are eating is actually beef? Ronald McDonald?
We would have had health care reform had the Republicans not stymied President Clinton's attempts at it. The Army would not be legally discriminating against gays had the Republicans not stood in Pres. Clinton's path. Name one issue where the conservatives are moving forward rather than staying still, or worse, going backwards...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Will someone please explain the fascination with Al Gore among some of the techies? I'd like to know if this is a knee-jerk "he's a Democrat, let's support him", instead of a reasoned commitment. If it is a reasoned committment, please provide some solid facts, and URLs, showing why I should support him as currently, I see him as the third in command (Hillary is second) of the Clinton administration, dedicated to removing my constitutional rights, and personal privacy.
Where internet property, privacy, and access issues are concerned, whomever occupies the Oval Office is far less significant than the makeup of Congress. Those of us with a professional or social interest in these issues should focus on the activity (or lack thereof) of Congess, the FCC, and the federal judiciary. I would feel more comfortable if the new President does nothing at all, given that a little knowlege is a dangerous thing.
All your belongings are base to us.
I got into a discussion (read: name calling session) on /. the other day regarding misstatements/falsehoods told by Gore, and misstatements/falsehoods told by the media in reporting them. The entire thread starts here, but if you're interested specifically in the "invented the Internet" story, check here .
In summary: Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn credit Gore with having more effect on the the development of the Internet than anyone else in public life. Declan McCullagh, the guy who broke the story in the first place, talks about how the story was mishandled by the press. Finally, The Washington Monthly reports on "how the press has exaggerated Al Gore's exaggerations."
And finally, because I wind up having to make this disclaimer every time I get involved in this topic, I do not consider myself to be a Gore supporter, let alone apologist, even though I'll probably wind up voting for him.
I think this is the question that should be at the core of this issue.
In terms of music and rights of artists versus individuals, it is both impossible and infringing on individual civil liberties for record companies like the MPAA to try and regulate listener's habits. This includes listening to your friends' music at their place and may well include getting together with like-minded folks (either in person or virtually) and listening to each others' music. On this dimension, Napster is a perfectly reasonable virtual sharing of musical interests. Based on this alone, there should be no regulation or prohibition here.
The question of restricting civil liberties come when a person or entity is harmed by the practice of these liberties. At this point, there is no evidence that Napster or other file sharing systems have hurt the MPAA or any recording artist. In fact, record sales data for Napster users suggests that contrary.
It seems only reasonable, then, that the burden should fall on the MPAA and others involved in this sort of litigation to prove that they have been and will continue to be substantially harmed by these sorts of service. Alarmism and overreaction on the part of the MPAA because they have lost some control over the distribution of music that somebody has purchased is not fair grounds for restricting civil liberties.
Notice that neither candidate mention the music labels in their response. I guess that means that they are really concerned about the artists, right......
hmmm, maybe I'll rethink that
I think it's time we put this "Gore invented the Internet" story behind us. After all, he even backed down from that himself.
There is one thing that I find more disturbing: for every person who ever believed that Gore invented the Internet, there are 5 who still believe Bill Gates did.
WWTTD?
In short, Gore's problem is an ontological one: you cannot initiate what has already started, and you cannot create what already exists. Yet this is precisely what Gore claimed, a claim that is so obviously undefendable. Unfortunately, he seemingly cannot stop pulling stuff out of the thin air, even when unpressured. Even at the first debate, he was claiming a nonexistent trip FEMA trip or lack of funding for a well-funded school.
The fact is, one will be hard pressed to defend a lifetime of lies, especially when that entails numerous documented fibs in his own words. The evidence is overwhelming, despite the feeble efforts of his defenders. Gore and Clinton are in a league of their own. What makes Gore worse is that while Clinton lies for self-preservation, Gore unnecessarily lies for self-aggrandization.
I would post a link to the Washington Post Article, but their archives aren't free.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
God knows how much I hate audioperverts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hphiles, but mp3s do have a sad effect on music. On certain musics rather. You can't expect a generic algorigthm to works equally well on all kinds of sonorities, and I do know that when I hear my own tracks at 160kbps, the effect is still quite strong.
mp3 seems to work pretty well on pop, but when it comes to more peculiar sounds, its effects can be very bad.
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
He said that that he "took the initative". You don't "take" a "Congressional initative". Clearly, that phrase is meant in the nonlegistlative sense. Moreover, you cannot create what already exists. The Internet Timeline shows that his legistlative work was in 1991, but Vint Cerf acknowledged that "the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983". And that is discounting all the work beginning in the 60s. Gore himself did not even start talking about the Internet until 1987. In other words, Gore was not even in picture when the Internet was being created, and was active only years later.
developed Mosaic under a federal grant authorized by one of Gore's bills.
I have to wonder. Were the good folks in Tennesee clamoring for Universities to be connected by a high speed WAN, or for the development of a graphical hypertext browser?
I personally don't like Gore very much; the "new democrat" thing is a bit too close to toadying to the big corporations, but he's no dummy. He definitely had vision on the issue back in the 80s when all this stuff was just a pipe dream. People are forgetting how exotic this stuff was back then.
Politics can turn anything positive into a negative. It kind of reminds me of how Jerry Brown got the sobriquet "Governor Moonbeam". He noted that California was a big state, and spent a lot of money for officials to travel from one part of the state to another. He proposed looking into launching a geosynchronous satellite to do video conferencing, which would save on travel costs and increase speed. This idea doesn't seem so far-fetched today, does it?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm coming to realise that what Napster claims to be, the best thing in obtaining legal music, is nothing more than a front for what it really is - a tool for organisations like the RIAA to get Congress to impose the most draconian laws possible to ensure that they get to keep their beloved monopoly position.
Sure, it may sound paranoid, but who would really release a piece of software which anyone could have told you was going to be hammered into the ground by litigation and legislation? Maybe Shawn Fanning would have, but their are some savvy people working for Napster, and it's hard to see them as being naive visionaries fighting the corporate foe.
And besides, just look at the software itself. It's hardly a labour of love is it? It looks like someone spent about an hour using VB1 to put a front end on a fairly simple network protocol. And indeed, the very protocol itself is designed to make the service easy to shut down in the event that Napster "loses" in court.
No, I think that the entire company has been funded by the RIAA for the sole purpose of vindicating their "you're all thieves and pirates" stance. Maybe Shawn Fanning was for real once, but I'm sure the endless $$$ of the RIAA would have been enough to buy his complicity. And the RIAA has gotten a hell of a lot of leverage off of the back of cases like Metallica and Dr Dre.
It's been said before that Napster is one of the worst things that could have happened in the struggle to promote new business models and remove the RIAA monopoly. I think it's kind of obvious why.