And who held the "forces of evil" at bay? Certainly not Connectix, or the Federal Courts - Sony *chose* to drop the case. So who, praytell, stopped the Evil Sony in its tracks?
Seems like the court did have a lot to do with it. The judge threw out most of Sony's case. So, Sony *chose* to drop the case because they'd already lost most of it and they realized they weren't likely to get anything out of it anymore, so it didn't make sense for them to keep fighting it to the bitter end. That just costs more money.
They will apparently be pursuing a separate patent-infringement case though. And Connectix is, of course, trying to have that one tossed out as well. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Why is Sony evil? Because they want to protect the market for a product they make? Because they want to make sure people aren't ripping off products they own?
It depends on their reasons for suing. If they truly believe that what Connectix has done violates the law, then they're probably right to sue. If they're doing it just to cause problems for Connectix, then they're evil. It seems that with 7 of the 9 allegations being tossed right out, they probably didn't have much of a case.
Apparently the patch is rather critical as it fixes several serious (i.e. they'll crash your box) bugs that must have somehow sneaked past the QA team. This is according to Computer Games Online. They have a short article on "first impressions" of the game in the "Quick Takes" section today.
I'd be perfectly happy if manuals for most apps were in digital form only, but when it comes to games, the printed manual is much preferred. This is mainly because when I'm playing a game, it's rather difficult to switch to a text editor to read up on how to do something, and then switch back to the game. Much easier to just keep the manual in my lap.
You can do some searches on google.com, etc, to find some articles he's written... there should be plenty that turn up... The book is really good though.
Nobody's accusing ol' YHVH of screwing up. But men do plenty of screwing (up). One of the results is overpopulation in many parts of the world. The land just can't support that many people. Of course part of that is due to men's other screwups. Basically men just screw up alot and that causes all sorts of problems. But cutting back on the population would help cut back the number of potential screwups, wouldn't it? Perhaps it would even mean that some people might get to eat.
That they cannot vote in (infrequent) elections dosn't really make much difference in practice.
Especially since they don't really need to vote. The corporation itself can contribute to campaigns, often in much larger amounts than individuals can, in order to influence the outcome.
You just haven't gotten good at it then. Anyone with a tiny razorblade could cut the plastic and adhesive along the edge of the box in less than 2 seconds. Then just slide your fingers in and pull the cd out and down the shorts it goes. Put the box back on the shelf and leave. I don't speak from my own experience here.. i speak from someone else's experience.:) Just trying to point out that a cardboard box wrapped in plastic is not much of a deterrant. There are much better ways that are probably less wasteful.
disables the computer ((!) how stupid is that?!) then that worker is completely idled until the admin re-enables it
I'm sure that such a feature would have to be optional. They could simply have the snapshot sent to management and the user wouldn't need to know anything about it.
In a tight labor market, that might not be too wise...
I would agree, but we're talking about companies that ARE going to use this software. There are plenty out there that will. I wouldn't want to work for such a company, but not everybody can afford to be picky about their employer all the time (including me, I just happen to work for a company that isn't quite so harsh about internet use. They do block sites, but it's done by humans, not a software program). Once you accept that some companies will use such software, unwise as that may be, then what I said is true. The software doesn't have to work very well. Just well enough to put the fear of management into the employees.
That's the beauty of this thing (from a rather draconian management point of view anyway), it doesn't have to do a very good job, it just has to work well enough to intimidate the employees enough that they don't dare visit any sites without a really good reason. Viola! You've eliminated recreational use of the Internet at your company!
Maybe it was worth it.. maybe not.. probably not since the only person that needed to read it was the person I was responding to. Still, you didn't explain why that makes me a fool. But I guess it's easy to toss baseless insults when you're posting as an AC.
While artists aren't obligated to sign a contract with a record company, there's almost no other way to get your albums distributed. And since there's only a handful of record companies, they can easily make unreasonable demands of the artists, at least until the artist has gotten big and their contract runs out... then they might have some negotiating power. But by then they've already lost ownership of all the music they made up to that point. You can blame artists for signing contracts, but it's silly to think they do it because they don't read the contract or they don't understand the contract. They do, they just know that they don't really have a choice if they want to get distributed.
How do they know that the film was ripped from a DVD? Couldn't someone have encoded a movie from a vhs tape? Did they clarify this in court? I don't know a lot about what can and cannot be done with a vhs tape and some sort of video capture equipment, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
Actually, I believe that if the individual obtained the evidence illegally, it will not be permissable in court. I seem to remember this from a case involving a reporting and the Chiquita Corporation. I think the reporter had a tape of phone conversations that supported his case, but unfortunately, the tape was obtained by breaking into a Chiquita office, and was therefore ruled inadmissable. I'm not 100% sure on this, but that's how I remember it. The type of case might have had something to do with it as well. I think the reporter was investigating some of Chiquita's business practices. Chiquita came off looking pretty evil, and probably would have had a serious problem if the tape had been admitted as evidence.
Re:The public interest is served.
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
So basically you're saying the history of copyright is important because it relates (or doesn't relate) to the history of copyright?
No, I'm saying that it's important for people to know the history of copyright and its original purpose so that they don't blindly accept that the system we have today is functionally equivalent or has the same goals, because it isn't and it doesn't. Many people support copyright because it always seemed like a good thing. It is rarely questioned. Well, since the system we have today bears little resemblance to the original, and has different goals, it makes sense that we should view and consider it for what it is, not what it's called, since the term "copyright" holds a certain meaning and implications for most people.
It still doesn't relate to the larger question of "Should an individual be allowed control of ideas he creates?"
That's why I talked about that in a separate paragraph.
You can have a monopoly on things you've created, but no one has a monopoly on music, or art, or literature.
Not as a whole, but that's not the issue here.
If it bothers you that your favorite song is owned by someone else, no one is stopping you from writing your own song to listen to instead.
This is closer to the issue. Here's my take. Say you write a piece of music. For this example we'll say it's a guitar piece with no other instruments or lyrics involved. What natural right do you have to prevent someone from playing that same song? What if you wrote it out as sheet music? What gives you the right to prevent other people from copying or writing that same piece of music (besides the current law)? Just because you wrote it first? Why should that matter to anybody? What you seem to want is a system where every artistic endeavor, every creative thought, every work of any artistic merit be owned by someone and everyone else must pay for access to it. That is a sad world, and one that the founders of this country did not envision when they adopted the copyright laws. That's why the goal was to expand the public domain. It was to be a source of creative works that the creators had profited from, that were now available for free for all to enjoy and learn from. This serves the public interest much better than allowing permanent ownership and control of creative expressions.
Of course you don't understand. You are a leech who contributes nothing.
Ahh... kind of like the corporations that own the creative works and profit by selling access to them. They create nothing... they simply leach off of society.
This could be solved in part by putting a time limit on copyrights owned by publicly traded companies, but even then the times would have to vary with each case to be truly fair. Individuals still deserve protection for life and beyond.
Why? That would solve nothing. New, privately held corporations would be created for the sole purpose of controlling access to these works. Individuals should not be able to control what others do with an idea or creative work that they created. There is no basis for claiming otherwise. You should not be able to tell me I can't make my own written copy of a piece of music you wrote. That's my own business if I wish to do that. Which is why copyright came about in the first place. I trade my right to do as I please with information I obtain, for a limited amount of time, giving you the opportunity to profit from your creation. At the end of that period, you fulfill your end of the bargain by releasing the work to the public domain. The upshot for me, if I'm the creative sort, is that I could do the same with something that I create. The upshot for the public as a whole is that the creative works that define our culture are freely available to anyone who wishes to have access to them. That is why copyright, as it was created, works. Take away that public benefit, and there is little benefit to the society as a whole, and probably much harm. Consider the fact that currently, the creations that define our culture and identity as a nation are owned, and will be owned for a long period of time by individuals and corporations. We end up with a pay-per-view culture rather than an open, accessible-to-all culture.
Some want to make enough money from their ideas to devote their full time to idea creation.
I don't see any reason they couldn't do that under the original terms of copyright. They would be allowed exclusive control of their work for 14 years. How much longer do they need, and why should I give up my rights to do as I please with that information any longer than that? Why shouldn't those creations be freely available to the rest of the country? We waste countless millions every year over petty bickering about ancient copyrighted works and possible violations of those copyrights. It would be much more beneficial and efficient if works were only protected for 14 years and then added to the public domain. It would drastically reduce the amount of resources wasted on these disputes. Those resources could then be used for something beneficial.
Others want to control their ideas and make sure that they are used only in the manner in which they were intended.
Again, why should I care what they want? If they don't want anyone to misuse their idea (and that is only in their opinion), then they should not reveal it. Once it's out there and people have learned about it, the creator should not have the right to forcibly prevent people from acting on what they know (and this is starting to cover patents as well, but that is a system with goals similar to those of copyright). At least not without the agreement of those people, which is where the tradeoffs come in. The creator has to give up something in order for it to be beneficial for the public to give up something.
Re:The public interest is served.
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
The history is important. It shows that the idea of absolute control and permanent ownership are relatively new ideas that bear little resemblance to the original purpose of copyright.
Given that, I think it's time we decide whether we really think that the government should be granting permanent monopolies on information and creative works, nearly all of which will eventually be owned by a corporation of some sort eventually, simply because the creators die. I don't see any justification for it. Why should anyone be given a government enforced monopoly? Why should the people of this country support it if they will see little to no return for their protection?
Re:The public interest is served.
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
If I record a song with the intention that no one be allowed to listen to it except in a special room I've constructed just for that purpose, I should be able to ensure that everyone who listens to it does so in my little room - forever.
No you shouldn't.
You don't seem to understand that copyright was intended to allow exclusive control (to a certain extent, and with exceptions for fair use) for a limited time (which has been ignored for quite a while now as the length of copyright keeps being extended) in order to encourage artists to create works that will be added to the public domain at the end of the copyright term. That's why copyright exists. Not because someone thought that creators should be able to have absolute control forever... that's just what the corps would like you to believe. It does not serve the public interest for our government to grant unlimited, perpetual monopolies to creators.
Slashdot Mirror
And who held the "forces of evil" at bay? Certainly not Connectix, or the Federal Courts - Sony *chose* to drop the case. So who, praytell, stopped the Evil Sony in its tracks?
Seems like the court did have a lot to do with it. The judge threw out most of Sony's case. So, Sony *chose* to drop the case because they'd already lost most of it and they realized they weren't likely to get anything out of it anymore, so it didn't make sense for them to keep fighting it to the bitter end. That just costs more money.
They will apparently be pursuing a separate patent-infringement case though. And Connectix is, of course, trying to have that one tossed out as well. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Why is Sony evil? Because they want to protect the market for a product they make? Because they want to make sure people aren't ripping off products they own?
It depends on their reasons for suing. If they truly believe that what Connectix has done violates the law, then they're probably right to sue. If they're doing it just to cause problems for Connectix, then they're evil. It seems that with 7 of the 9 allegations being tossed right out, they probably didn't have much of a case.
Apparently the patch is rather critical as it fixes several serious (i.e. they'll crash your box) bugs that must have somehow sneaked past the QA team. This is according to Computer Games Online. They have a short article on "first impressions" of the game in the "Quick Takes" section today.
I'd be perfectly happy if manuals for most apps were in digital form only, but when it comes to games, the printed manual is much preferred. This is mainly because when I'm playing a game, it's rather difficult to switch to a text editor to read up on how to do something, and then switch back to the game. Much easier to just keep the manual in my lap.
From what I understand, that isn't illegal... at least not where they were doing it.
http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp ?theisbn=0465039138&from=bbookbuy
You can do some searches on google.com, etc, to find some articles he's written... there should be plenty that turn up... The book is really good though.
State doesn't necessarily refer to one of the United States of America. It could refer to other nations as well.
I love posts that eloquently rebut an argument. I guess you figure your rubber stamp makes your arguments for you. Lazy AC poster.
How was my post any more flamebait-ish than the one i was replying to?
They forgot to tell you that after the lion lies down with the lamb, it begins to chew. :)
No, more like a rather small, but vocal, portion of slashdot posters.
Nobody's accusing ol' YHVH of screwing up. But men do plenty of screwing (up). One of the results is overpopulation in many parts of the world. The land just can't support that many people. Of course part of that is due to men's other screwups. Basically men just screw up alot and that causes all sorts of problems. But cutting back on the population would help cut back the number of potential screwups, wouldn't it? Perhaps it would even mean that some people might get to eat.
That they cannot vote in (infrequent) elections dosn't really make much difference in practice.
Especially since they don't really need to vote. The corporation itself can contribute to campaigns, often in much larger amounts than individuals can, in order to influence the outcome.
I think that's why Best Buy always has a guy standing at the door checking everyone's receipt as they leave. Probably well worth the trouble.
You just haven't gotten good at it then. Anyone with a tiny razorblade could cut the plastic and adhesive along the edge of the box in less than 2 seconds. Then just slide your fingers in and pull the cd out and down the shorts it goes. Put the box back on the shelf and leave. I don't speak from my own experience here.. i speak from someone else's experience. :) Just trying to point out that a cardboard box wrapped in plastic is not much of a deterrant. There are much better ways that are probably less wasteful.
disables the computer ((!) how stupid is that?!) then that worker is completely idled until the admin re-enables it
I'm sure that such a feature would have to be optional. They could simply have the snapshot sent to management and the user wouldn't need to know anything about it.
In a tight labor market, that might not be too wise...
I would agree, but we're talking about companies that ARE going to use this software. There are plenty out there that will. I wouldn't want to work for such a company, but not everybody can afford to be picky about their employer all the time (including me, I just happen to work for a company that isn't quite so harsh about internet use. They do block sites, but it's done by humans, not a software program). Once you accept that some companies will use such software, unwise as that may be, then what I said is true. The software doesn't have to work very well. Just well enough to put the fear of management into the employees.
That's the beauty of this thing (from a rather draconian management point of view anyway), it doesn't have to do a very good job, it just has to work well enough to intimidate the employees enough that they don't dare visit any sites without a really good reason. Viola! You've eliminated recreational use of the Internet at your company!
Maybe it was worth it.. maybe not.. probably not since the only person that needed to read it was the person I was responding to. Still, you didn't explain why that makes me a fool. But I guess it's easy to toss baseless insults when you're posting as an AC.
Read the damn article that he linked to, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
You should read her article. Here's a link:
http://www.salon.com/t ech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
While artists aren't obligated to sign a contract with a record company, there's almost no other way to get your albums distributed. And since there's only a handful of record companies, they can easily make unreasonable demands of the artists, at least until the artist has gotten big and their contract runs out... then they might have some negotiating power. But by then they've already lost ownership of all the music they made up to that point. You can blame artists for signing contracts, but it's silly to think they do it because they don't read the contract or they don't understand the contract. They do, they just know that they don't really have a choice if they want to get distributed.
Yeah, but who can we vote for that would actually make a difference?
How do they know that the film was ripped from a DVD? Couldn't someone have encoded a movie from a vhs tape? Did they clarify this in court? I don't know a lot about what can and cannot be done with a vhs tape and some sort of video capture equipment, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
Actually, I believe that if the individual obtained the evidence illegally, it will not be permissable in court. I seem to remember this from a case involving a reporting and the Chiquita Corporation. I think the reporter had a tape of phone conversations that supported his case, but unfortunately, the tape was obtained by breaking into a Chiquita office, and was therefore ruled inadmissable. I'm not 100% sure on this, but that's how I remember it. The type of case might have had something to do with it as well. I think the reporter was investigating some of Chiquita's business practices. Chiquita came off looking pretty evil, and probably would have had a serious problem if the tape had been admitted as evidence.
Just found the article.
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/ chiquita
So basically you're saying the history of copyright is important because it relates (or doesn't relate) to the history of copyright?
No, I'm saying that it's important for people to know the history of copyright and its original purpose so that they don't blindly accept that the system we have today is functionally equivalent or has the same goals, because it isn't and it doesn't. Many people support copyright because it always seemed like a good thing. It is rarely questioned. Well, since the system we have today bears little resemblance to the original, and has different goals, it makes sense that we should view and consider it for what it is, not what it's called, since the term "copyright" holds a certain meaning and implications for most people.
It still doesn't relate to the larger question of "Should an individual be allowed control of ideas he creates?"
That's why I talked about that in a separate paragraph.
You can have a monopoly on things you've created, but no one has a monopoly on music, or art, or literature.
Not as a whole, but that's not the issue here.
If it bothers you that your favorite song is owned by someone else, no one is stopping you from writing your own song to listen to instead.
This is closer to the issue. Here's my take. Say you write a piece of music. For this example we'll say it's a guitar piece with no other instruments or lyrics involved. What natural right do you have to prevent someone from playing that same song? What if you wrote it out as sheet music? What gives you the right to prevent other people from copying or writing that same piece of music (besides the current law)? Just because you wrote it first? Why should that matter to anybody? What you seem to want is a system where every artistic endeavor, every creative thought, every work of any artistic merit be owned by someone and everyone else must pay for access to it. That is a sad world, and one that the founders of this country did not envision when they adopted the copyright laws. That's why the goal was to expand the public domain. It was to be a source of creative works that the creators had profited from, that were now available for free for all to enjoy and learn from. This serves the public interest much better than allowing permanent ownership and control of creative expressions.
Of course you don't understand. You are a leech who contributes nothing.
Ahh... kind of like the corporations that own the creative works and profit by selling access to them. They create nothing... they simply leach off of society.
This could be solved in part by putting a time limit on copyrights owned by publicly traded companies, but even then the times would have to vary with each case to be truly fair. Individuals still deserve protection for life and beyond.
Why? That would solve nothing. New, privately held corporations would be created for the sole purpose of controlling access to these works. Individuals should not be able to control what others do with an idea or creative work that they created. There is no basis for claiming otherwise. You should not be able to tell me I can't make my own written copy of a piece of music you wrote. That's my own business if I wish to do that. Which is why copyright came about in the first place. I trade my right to do as I please with information I obtain, for a limited amount of time, giving you the opportunity to profit from your creation. At the end of that period, you fulfill your end of the bargain by releasing the work to the public domain. The upshot for me, if I'm the creative sort, is that I could do the same with something that I create. The upshot for the public as a whole is that the creative works that define our culture are freely available to anyone who wishes to have access to them. That is why copyright, as it was created, works. Take away that public benefit, and there is little benefit to the society as a whole, and probably much harm. Consider the fact that currently, the creations that define our culture and identity as a nation are owned, and will be owned for a long period of time by individuals and corporations. We end up with a pay-per-view culture rather than an open, accessible-to-all culture.
Some want to make enough money from their ideas to devote their full time to idea creation.
I don't see any reason they couldn't do that under the original terms of copyright. They would be allowed exclusive control of their work for 14 years. How much longer do they need, and why should I give up my rights to do as I please with that information any longer than that? Why shouldn't those creations be freely available to the rest of the country? We waste countless millions every year over petty bickering about ancient copyrighted works and possible violations of those copyrights. It would be much more beneficial and efficient if works were only protected for 14 years and then added to the public domain. It would drastically reduce the amount of resources wasted on these disputes. Those resources could then be used for something beneficial.
Others want to control their ideas and make sure that they are used only in the manner in which they were intended.
Again, why should I care what they want? If they don't want anyone to misuse their idea (and that is only in their opinion), then they should not reveal it. Once it's out there and people have learned about it, the creator should not have the right to forcibly prevent people from acting on what they know (and this is starting to cover patents as well, but that is a system with goals similar to those of copyright). At least not without the agreement of those people, which is where the tradeoffs come in. The creator has to give up something in order for it to be beneficial for the public to give up something.
The history is important. It shows that the idea of absolute control and permanent ownership are relatively new ideas that bear little resemblance to the original purpose of copyright.
Given that, I think it's time we decide whether we really think that the government should be granting permanent monopolies on information and creative works, nearly all of which will eventually be owned by a corporation of some sort eventually, simply because the creators die. I don't see any justification for it. Why should anyone be given a government enforced monopoly? Why should the people of this country support it if they will see little to no return for their protection?
If I record a song with the intention that no one be allowed to listen to it except in a special room I've constructed just for that purpose, I should be able to ensure that everyone who listens to it does so in my little room - forever.
No you shouldn't.
You don't seem to understand that copyright was intended to allow exclusive control (to a certain extent, and with exceptions for fair use) for a limited time (which has been ignored for quite a while now as the length of copyright keeps being extended) in order to encourage artists to create works that will be added to the public domain at the end of the copyright term. That's why copyright exists. Not because someone thought that creators should be able to have absolute control forever... that's just what the corps would like you to believe. It does not serve the public interest for our government to grant unlimited, perpetual monopolies to creators.