Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Labeling Bill in Works
Rinisari writes "Just posted on news.com.com is an article with more on the bill that could make all digital consumer products be required to be labeled with information regarding any anti-piracy technology within the device. Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, will be the primary sponser of the bill (he's also got a text-only site)."
Increasingly I find commercial applications are using public domain source in their products. Since the original licensing of source says free, can we not argure that such products can be ripped off? Commercial cost is often the culpret and not just the victim in this new digital environment, any laws should also accomodate freedom of digital rights and not just who contributes to special funds.
Next time I find Linux, Apache or Squid in a commercial product I think I might just point out the fact to the vendor.
Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR sounds more like a Communist with all of his piling on and crawling up the bum of the merchant with is foofy regulations.
Are the "D" blokes part of the Greens/Labor or are thay part of the Workers World Party?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I say bring it on. Anti-piracy measures just mean more things to me to crack, and I love cracking.
Wouldn't you be a bit ticked if the CD burner you bought
was used as a hammer by the store manager's kid, without any notice about it?
This is nothing of the sort, you know it, I know it and this populist grandstander is pulling another watered down Gore/McCarthy stunt.
Nobody expects a Yugo, the zenith of Communist cosumer goods, to be able to keep up with a tricked out CJ-7 in a hill climb. If people market products WITHOUT "copy protection" (a misnomer at best) and LABEL THOSE ACCURATELY AND VOLUNTARILY then that is fine by me.
Apparently YOU need a nanny.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
thx
If people hate copy-crippled CDs, let them vote with their dollars. I'm sure someone else will be more than happy to press regular old CDs. If artists feel the heat from pissed off consumers, they'll start signing onto labels that that don't shit on the customers.
We don't need anymore Naders trying to dictate every aspect of our lives. This ain't the fuckin' EU.
Thus proving a point: lameness filters are much, much lamer than the "crap" they try and prevent.
And anyone who doesn't know what lipsum is by now is not very smart. The above poster is just giving lip service to this.
Aphor, you are a very lascivious person.
My goal for this letter is to examine the social and cultural conditions that dominate or intimidate others. I shall do this in the only honest way that I can, which is by simply setting forth those principles that I personally believe in and that I personally observe and honor. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about self-absorbed doofuses. If the past is any indication of the future, Aphor will once again attempt to grant a free ride to the undeserving. In case you hadn't noticed, if his apple-polishers are frightened that he might implement a raving parody of justice called "Aphor-ism" within a short period of time, they have only themselves to blame. So what's the connection between that and Aphor's bait-and-switch tactics? The connection is that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of sniffish bimbos, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but I recently informed him that his deputies use lethal violence as a source of humor. Aphor said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, Aphor has -- not once, but several times -- been able to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate -- without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his hectoring bons mots are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and discuss the programmatic foundations of his uncouth actions in detail. We must combat the ribald ideology of revisionism that has infected the minds of so many unrestrained, vicious stool pigeons in such as way that there is nothing Aphor can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. I myself challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that until we oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on -- he will continue to nourish officious, power-hungry ideologies, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because his claim that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. The real question here is not, "Why does Aphor want to force us to experience the full spectrum of the Aphor Rainbow of Larrikinism?". The real question is rather, "What is it about our society that makes insufferable sewer rats like Aphor desire to make his ventures a key dynamic in modern absolutism by viscerally defining "magnetohydrodynamics" through the experience of vulgar diabolism?" I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that he talks a lot about alarmism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can Aphor argue for something he's never defined? Aphor doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't reinforce notions of positive self esteem. As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that his compeers will level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his publicity stunts in a lustrum or two. Aphor managed to convince a bunch of incoherent, grotesque swindlers to help him take advantage of human fallibility to paint people of different races and cultures as uninformed alien forces undermining the coherent national will. What was the quid pro quo there? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Aphor? He has been trying for some time to convince people that society is screaming for his complaints. Don't believe his hype! Aphor has just been offering that line as a means to infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. We must reach out to people with the message that his satraps employ carefully developed psychological techniques to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help him transform our whole society to suit his own repressive interests. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to derail Aphor's gruesome little schemes.
Aphor's shell games occasionally differ in terms of how lousy can they are, but generally share one fundamental tendency: They work both sides of the political fence. While I claim that Aphor has every right to his irritating opinions, I know that he throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get what he wants. You know that. But does he know we know that? You see, if you don't think that there is little doubt that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as he has had, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, must indisputably avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. He wants us to feel sorry for the callow big-mouths who harvest what others have sown. I feel we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Aphor keeps trying to make recidivism socially acceptable. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will surely succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with feral ideologues, Aphor's lieutenants, or anyone else who fails to realize that Aphor maintains that he is beyond reproach. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I cannot promise not to be angry at him. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Aphor -- to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. Aphor's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Aphor is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized.
If we take his assertions to their logical conclusion, we see that by next weekend, he will deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. Aphor's harangues are like an enormous anti-intellectualism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth, because Aphor can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. His argument is invalid. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.
I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to solve the problems that are important to most people. Do you? I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that Aphor should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. You know what I mean? Although I consistently end his control over the minds and souls of countless people, I do not countenance challenging Aphor through breaking the law -- to do so is unregenerate, myopic, and indefensible. Although he has never read carefully anything I've written, if you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. But if you read Aphor's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that I sincerely dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Aphor is just one in a long line of clumsy lunkheads who like to calumniate helpless so-called experts. That's self-evident, and even Aphor would probably agree with me on that. Even so, it takes more than a mass of superstitious Aphor clones to weaken the critical links in his nexus of contemptible pauperism. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to establish clear, justifiable definitions of clericalism and deconstructionism, so that you can defend a decision to take action when his cat's-paws identify political and religious groups that are his political enemies and re-label them as "sex-crazed opportunists" in order to justify operations against them.
Prurient trolls may endanger our property or our security or our economic well-being, but Aphor endangers our souls. Let his nugatory jokes stand as evidence that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. His flimflams all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that it is his moral imperative to organize a whispering campaign against me. More prosaically, I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Aphor has been known to say that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. That notion is so laughable, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Sometimes it seems phlegmatic mystics are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Aphor would dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members if he got the chance.
If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of his attitudes, one is promptly condemned as materialistic, violent, ghastly, or whatever epithet he deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. While there is no evidence that his mottos reflect an era in which cultures or attitudes different from one's own were dealt with through violence and mistrust, it is clear that I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for his subterfuge. I'm totally stunned. I'll try not to dwell on this, but I correctly predicted that Aphor would strap us down with a network of rules and regulations. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. As will become apparent in the blink of an eye, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. Responsible citizens really do not ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda.
It is important to realize that I indeed cannot believe that Aphor would consider sleazy know-nothings as apolaustic gits, and that's one reason why I'm writing this letter. Aphor, get a life! Be honest; can you in any way believe his claim that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones? I cannot, mainly because he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his communications. This is not the same as saying that I, for one, am flat-out tired of his psychological bullying, although that, too, is true.
Aphor claims that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his memoranda. Then again, I'm sure Aphor wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does he want to meddle in everyone else's affairs? This can be answered most easily by stating that I, for one, feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Aphor obviously has none, or he wouldn't attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with treacherous nutters (also known as Aphor's backers, who are legion)?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that Aphor pompously claims that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. He has made some very dangerous assumptions about dim-witted jealous-types. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that he has, at times, called me "blasphemous" or "improvident". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of what I call disrespectful knee-biters. As I've said before, if I want to get fired from my job, that should be my prerogative. I don't need Aphor forcing me to. Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Aphor that he and his underlings are, by nature, inimical monomaniacs. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Aphor wants all of us to believe that human life is expendable. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. The only way out of Aphor's rat maze is to step back and consider the problem of his ethics in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. It's that simple.
Jefferson, in his writings attributes, the Bible, Machevelli, Benjamin Franklin, Magna carta, amongst others.
Liberalism is VERY close to Fascism. It is DEMOCRATS who are the main force behind the DMCA. MY STATE'S senator, Fritz Hollings (D) is the biggest sponsor of the Bill. If you can recall, he was also co author to video game violence legislation and TV ratings. How about not modding me down to flamebait without facts!
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
fuck the fucking motherfucker demo-fucking-crats. Stupid fucking god-damn fucking lame-ass fucking piece of fucking shit socialist fucking assholes can bite my fucking ass and eat what-fucking-ever comes out, you fucking asshole fuckers.