Great question. I've wondered it myself quite a few times. I've always assumed the answer was that the reps really don't want to explain why they vote the way they do. It's easier to just kiss babies, shake hands, and spew rhetoric to get reelected than to actually be accountable for how you vote. Then there's the fact that some legislation, even important legislation (case in point, the DMCA) are passed by a voice vote, with no record left of who voted which way for the law. I think that is positively criminal, but it happens. I'd like to see something done about that.
I think it's an extremely relevant topic. This isn't just about Napster, that's a very small-picture view of things.
I think one of the main reasons that many people don't respect copyright anymore is because they see it for what it has become, a tool for corporations to retain perpetual control over information and creative works. The public has no interest in that, and it was not the intent of copyright to allow such a thing. If the government is going to enforce an artificial and arbitrary period of control over information, there had better be a public benefit from it. That benefit has been legislated out of existence. People are right to be pissed off about that. I think people understand that copyright, as it exists today, is wrong, even if they don't consciously know exactly why. That's why millions of people don't seem to have any moral qualms about downloading copyrighted music.
Personally, I'd like to be able to contribute directly to the artist (or at least a lot more directly). I buy CDs from artists on MP3.com. I go to concerts and buy their merchandise. It's not the artists I have a problem with. It's the exploitive and overly controlling recording industry that I have a problem with.
They've got their system established where they control the radio airwaves through bribes to the stations to get the music they're promoting played more. Radio stations can't play whatever they want anymore. The creativity is gone. Now it's all about the money. Stations have to make the money to stay competitive. The record labels have the money. The stations sell out to the record labels or they die. The big station owners managed to all but kill the FCC's plan to allow low-powered stations to exist and maybe bring us something other than the same 20-30 songs in constant rotation. There is still some hope that the low-powered stations will eventually get their chance, but they are facing a tough battle.
In the end, what it comes down to is a decision about who gets to control information, creative works, and culture, and how long and how much they get to control them. If copyright were reduced to its original 14 year term, perhaps people would have more respect for it. I know I would. As it stands today, with copyrights lasting longer than a human life, they might as well be perpetual. Nothing has transitioned into the public domain in decades. The public is not benefitting. As long as people recognize that copyrights exist like this because of corporate lobbying and no longer serve the public, they will not feel any guilt or remorse for violating those copyrights. If it's done on a large enough scale (Napster scale), this kind of civil disobedience could eventually help change the laws of this country. Let's just hope that the people of this country still have the power to stand up to the corporations of this country.
Fixing one guy's car is not the same as coding a software package that can be used by millions. If Bob created new car parts through some mystical means that required only minimal overhead costs and his own time, but could be given to everyone who wanted them, then I think a tax credit might be in order.
It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
It does no such thing. It simply rewards the contributions made by individuals and corporations to the public. Even if, by providing this benefit to the public, it lessens their ability to make a profit, I still see nothing wrong with the tax credit. The tax credit and the benefit to the public cancel each other out. What is left is a business that may be only marginally profitable, or not profitable at all, but that's not a problem. Hell, our tax dollars are used to fund private research and whatnot all the time. Why not use that money for something that we will actually see a return on?
As you know, copyright term lengths have grown incredibly since they were first established. Given that copyright was intended to benefit the public by making more works available to the public, how can a term length longer than most human lives be justified? Isn't this basically as bad as a perpetual copyright, especially in light of the fact that every time the leading edge of copyrighted works are about to become public domain, major copyright holders lobby Congress to extend the terms again, even retroactively?
I seriously hope that this very loaded question doens't make the cut. I'm not sure what Mr. Boucher's opinions are on gun issues, but I would rather keep the discussion on the topic of IP and Internet regulation rather than going off into more controversial and less productive topics.
The thinking is that medics come for the injured and, then you shoot them with real guns...
The thinking is that by injuring an enemy soldier rather than killing him, you not only take him out of the fight, but you also force the enemy to expend resources (i.e. 2 people to carry him away, medical supplies, doctors) to care for him.
The difference being that with the server version you are also buying the necessary license to allow (more than 5?) users to connect to the server legally.
Many people don't really consider having some fun to be wasteful. As long as you're not spending your life in a game all the time (Evercrack and UO come to mind) then it's no big deal. Can't work all the time.
Dungeon keeper in 1 hour? Forgive me if i think your sense of time is a tad off. It wasn't a difficult game by any means, but i think it's a physical impossibility to beat the entire game in an hour. The levels just can't be played that fast without cheats.
It just so happens that science is the more commond and accepted religion now a days.
That's because science can demonstrate most of its claims. We can see that they are true. So when they use that information to build theories, we have a much easier time accepting them because they fit with what we've already seen to be true.
A sort of simple example of this already exists now in caller-id and the various offshoots.
That's great, but that wouldn't work in a "transparent society." It wouldn't be open. You couldn't be unlisted in the phone book. Not sure that smart filtering would help much either. It wouldn't be able to block people since that would remove the transparency. It might be able to do a background check for criminal history or something like that on everybody that checks up on you, but I'm not sure that would help either. About the best it could do is confirm that some of these people are dangerous nutjobs. Celebs know that already though. That's one reason they are as secretive as they often are. That won't be an option for them in a transparent society.
Actually, before you can dig your own well, you have to file for permits. Not likely that you can dig a well or install a generator if you're only renting too. If you don't pay taxes you'll probably attract unwanted attention from IRS soon enough.
What you're saying is that if we live like bums (because you can't get much of an education or a decent job without organizations getting info on you) we can have privacy. The other choice is to pay organizations enough that they will guard your info for you. This is an option if you're extremely wealthy. Neither should be necessary, and neither is practical for most people. So basically everything you said is pretty much worthless to everyone. (Which means this post isn't worth much either, except that I got to say what I wanted) Sorry:)
No, I shouldn't have sold it. Selling it wasn't an option anyway. If users hadn't contributed, CDDB wouldn't even have a product to sell now. What should have happened is that CDDB either remained free to access, or they remove all entries submitted by users unless they are granted permission to use them by the contributing user. People contributed because CDDB was a free service. Had they been charging, very few people would have submitted anything and they wouldn't have a product. They probably knew this as well which is why they decided to continue the deception instead of telling people up front that they planned on selling access rights to developers.
Tell me again where it says users have to pay and how much so I know how much effort I should spend fighting CDDB with you.
Okay, and I'll try to use small words so you understand:). By charging software developers for the right to access the database, they will force the developers to charge (or charge more) for their software. So users end up paying.
FreeDB already exists. That doesn't change the fact that Gracenote deceived those who helped to build their product. Apparently ethics are unknown to hardcore capitalists. All that matters is the money.
Sure. It comes down to this: they never told people that they were going to charge them to access the information that they were submitting. Had they done so, one of two things might have happened. People might have accepted this and continued to submit entries to the DB. Or they might have decided that it wasn't worth their time or effort and they wouldn't submit anymore (and then CDDB ends up with a much inferior product). What CDDB did was take everyone's submissions under false pretenses. That's theft. If they can own the copyright to their database, then I should own the copyright to the lists of tracks that I submitted. Since they incorporated my copyrighted information into their database under false pretenses, I should have some recourse against them.
That's not our problem. If they wanted to sell the database information, they should have told people that up front. As it stands, their "product" was created through fraudulent means. They lied, plain and simple.
You don't own the names of the songs you entered -- the artists that wrote the songs do, if anybody.
Heh... doesn't matter who owns the names of the songs. If you compile a database of pretty much anything, you can copyright it. You're not copyrighting the names, you're copyrighting your collection of information. CDDB did that with their database and they don't own the song and album names any more than we do. So, if i create a list of all the tracks on an album, I have just as much right to protect that list as they do to protect their database. If they incorporate my list under false pretenses, then I should have some recourse against them.
I think the problem some have is when pro-community people start stating that profit is evil.
Or in this case the problem was that CDDB lied about their intents to the people who helped build their product, and then proceeded to restrict access to those who wouldn't pay for what they helped to build. No, profit isn't evil. Using deceptive and fraudulent tactics to profit is evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Great question. I've wondered it myself quite a few times. I've always assumed the answer was that the reps really don't want to explain why they vote the way they do. It's easier to just kiss babies, shake hands, and spew rhetoric to get reelected than to actually be accountable for how you vote. Then there's the fact that some legislation, even important legislation (case in point, the DMCA) are passed by a voice vote, with no record left of who voted which way for the law. I think that is positively criminal, but it happens. I'd like to see something done about that.
I think it's an extremely relevant topic. This isn't just about Napster, that's a very small-picture view of things.
I think one of the main reasons that many people don't respect copyright anymore is because they see it for what it has become, a tool for corporations to retain perpetual control over information and creative works. The public has no interest in that, and it was not the intent of copyright to allow such a thing. If the government is going to enforce an artificial and arbitrary period of control over information, there had better be a public benefit from it. That benefit has been legislated out of existence. People are right to be pissed off about that. I think people understand that copyright, as it exists today, is wrong, even if they don't consciously know exactly why. That's why millions of people don't seem to have any moral qualms about downloading copyrighted music.
Personally, I'd like to be able to contribute directly to the artist (or at least a lot more directly). I buy CDs from artists on MP3.com. I go to concerts and buy their merchandise. It's not the artists I have a problem with. It's the exploitive and overly controlling recording industry that I have a problem with.
They've got their system established where they control the radio airwaves through bribes to the stations to get the music they're promoting played more. Radio stations can't play whatever they want anymore. The creativity is gone. Now it's all about the money. Stations have to make the money to stay competitive. The record labels have the money. The stations sell out to the record labels or they die. The big station owners managed to all but kill the FCC's plan to allow low-powered stations to exist and maybe bring us something other than the same 20-30 songs in constant rotation. There is still some hope that the low-powered stations will eventually get their chance, but they are facing a tough battle.
In the end, what it comes down to is a decision about who gets to control information, creative works, and culture, and how long and how much they get to control them. If copyright were reduced to its original 14 year term, perhaps people would have more respect for it. I know I would. As it stands today, with copyrights lasting longer than a human life, they might as well be perpetual. Nothing has transitioned into the public domain in decades. The public is not benefitting. As long as people recognize that copyrights exist like this because of corporate lobbying and no longer serve the public, they will not feel any guilt or remorse for violating those copyrights. If it's done on a large enough scale (Napster scale), this kind of civil disobedience could eventually help change the laws of this country. Let's just hope that the people of this country still have the power to stand up to the corporations of this country.
Fixing one guy's car is not the same as coding a software package that can be used by millions. If Bob created new car parts through some mystical means that required only minimal overhead costs and his own time, but could be given to everyone who wanted them, then I think a tax credit might be in order.
It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
It does no such thing. It simply rewards the contributions made by individuals and corporations to the public. Even if, by providing this benefit to the public, it lessens their ability to make a profit, I still see nothing wrong with the tax credit. The tax credit and the benefit to the public cancel each other out. What is left is a business that may be only marginally profitable, or not profitable at all, but that's not a problem. Hell, our tax dollars are used to fund private research and whatnot all the time. Why not use that money for something that we will actually see a return on?
As you know, copyright term lengths have grown incredibly since they were first established. Given that copyright was intended to benefit the public by making more works available to the public, how can a term length longer than most human lives be justified? Isn't this basically as bad as a perpetual copyright, especially in light of the fact that every time the leading edge of copyrighted works are about to become public domain, major copyright holders lobby Congress to extend the terms again, even retroactively?
I seriously hope that this very loaded question doens't make the cut. I'm not sure what Mr. Boucher's opinions are on gun issues, but I would rather keep the discussion on the topic of IP and Internet regulation rather than going off into more controversial and less productive topics.
The thinking is that medics come for the injured and, then you shoot them with real guns...
The thinking is that by injuring an enemy soldier rather than killing him, you not only take him out of the fight, but you also force the enemy to expend resources (i.e. 2 people to carry him away, medical supplies, doctors) to care for him.
It wasn't so long ago that the term "FMV" associated with any game automatically meant it sucked. I don't recall a single decent FMV game... ever.
The difference being that with the server version you are also buying the necessary license to allow (more than 5?) users to connect to the server legally.
Many people don't really consider having some fun to be wasteful. As long as you're not spending your life in a game all the time (Evercrack and UO come to mind) then it's no big deal. Can't work all the time.
Dungeon keeper in 1 hour? Forgive me if i think your sense of time is a tad off. It wasn't a difficult game by any means, but i think it's a physical impossibility to beat the entire game in an hour. The levels just can't be played that fast without cheats.
It just so happens that science is the more commond and accepted religion now a days.
That's because science can demonstrate most of its claims. We can see that they are true. So when they use that information to build theories, we have a much easier time accepting them because they fit with what we've already seen to be true.
A sort of simple example of this already exists now in caller-id and the various offshoots.
That's great, but that wouldn't work in a "transparent society." It wouldn't be open. You couldn't be unlisted in the phone book. Not sure that smart filtering would help much either. It wouldn't be able to block people since that would remove the transparency. It might be able to do a background check for criminal history or something like that on everybody that checks up on you, but I'm not sure that would help either. About the best it could do is confirm that some of these people are dangerous nutjobs. Celebs know that already though. That's one reason they are as secretive as they often are. That won't be an option for them in a transparent society.
Actually, before you can dig your own well, you have to file for permits. Not likely that you can dig a well or install a generator if you're only renting too. If you don't pay taxes you'll probably attract unwanted attention from IRS soon enough.
What you're saying is that if we live like bums (because you can't get much of an education or a decent job without organizations getting info on you) we can have privacy. The other choice is to pay organizations enough that they will guard your info for you. This is an option if you're extremely wealthy. Neither should be necessary, and neither is practical for most people. So basically everything you said is pretty much worthless to everyone. (Which means this post isn't worth much either, except that I got to say what I wanted) Sorry :)
So, if you're a celebrity, even a minor one, you're screwed. There's no way you could monitor all those people checking you out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN.
You should've sold it to them in the first place.
No, I shouldn't have sold it. Selling it wasn't an option anyway. If users hadn't contributed, CDDB wouldn't even have a product to sell now. What should have happened is that CDDB either remained free to access, or they remove all entries submitted by users unless they are granted permission to use them by the contributing user. People contributed because CDDB was a free service. Had they been charging, very few people would have submitted anything and they wouldn't have a product. They probably knew this as well which is why they decided to continue the deception instead of telling people up front that they planned on selling access rights to developers.
Tell me again where it says users have to pay and how much so I know how much effort I should spend fighting CDDB with you.
Okay, and I'll try to use small words so you understand :). By charging software developers for the right to access the database, they will force the developers to charge (or charge more) for their software. So users end up paying.
So make your own free *DB service.
FreeDB already exists. That doesn't change the fact that Gracenote deceived those who helped to build their product. Apparently ethics are unknown to hardcore capitalists. All that matters is the money.
Please, explain to me how this is theft.
Sure. It comes down to this: they never told people that they were going to charge them to access the information that they were submitting. Had they done so, one of two things might have happened. People might have accepted this and continued to submit entries to the DB. Or they might have decided that it wasn't worth their time or effort and they wouldn't submit anymore (and then CDDB ends up with a much inferior product). What CDDB did was take everyone's submissions under false pretenses. That's theft. If they can own the copyright to their database, then I should own the copyright to the lists of tracks that I submitted. Since they incorporated my copyrighted information into their database under false pretenses, I should have some recourse against them.
That's not our problem. If they wanted to sell the database information, they should have told people that up front. As it stands, their "product" was created through fraudulent means. They lied, plain and simple.
Boy you've got some gall!
You don't own the names of the songs you entered -- the artists that wrote the songs do, if anybody.
Heh... doesn't matter who owns the names of the songs. If you compile a database of pretty much anything, you can copyright it. You're not copyrighting the names, you're copyrighting your collection of information. CDDB did that with their database and they don't own the song and album names any more than we do. So, if i create a list of all the tracks on an album, I have just as much right to protect that list as they do to protect their database. If they incorporate my list under false pretenses, then I should have some recourse against them.
Look, nobody is pissed that CDDB wanted to make a profit. People are pissed because CDDB deceived people in order to build their product.
I think the problem some have is when pro-community people start stating that profit is evil.
Or in this case the problem was that CDDB lied about their intents to the people who helped build their product, and then proceeded to restrict access to those who wouldn't pay for what they helped to build. No, profit isn't evil. Using deceptive and fraudulent tactics to profit is evil.
No, only the versions that you put under GPL remain so. If you create a new version, you don't have to put it under the GPL as well.