Do you have some reference to confirm this? From what I've read, the original poster was correct. I'm not at my usual computer right now, so I can't confirm my memory at the moment either, but I think he was right.
I consider napster quite useless for the distribution of legal music from unknown artists, so using it as an example for the possibilities to spread such works is IMO a bad idea.
You've made a suggestion that might make Napster better for distributing legal MP3s, but you haven't proven that it's useless for that purpose without the improvements.
I think that the users of Napster are the ones breaking the law, and while I don't have a problem with them doing that since I think the RIAA is doing things that are every bit as bad, and probably worse, the users are the ones that should be ultimately responsible for their actions, not the software that they used in order to break the law.
The problem isn't napster. It's people who are using it illegally. What these people are suggesting is like shutting down the Internet because it is widely used to commit copyright infringement. You don't go after the internet, you go after the people who are misusing it.
Now, that said, I don't think that Napster is that much of a drain on the music industry. I WANT to support the artists I like. Otherwise I might not be able to get any new music from them because they can't make any money at it. What I don't like is the current setup that the industry has. They make huge profits and most artists barely make a living (if even that). They jack up the cost of music for consumers, while providing no real benefit for us. If we could get our music from the artists without paying for all the unnecessary overhead, we'd pay a lot less for the music and the artists would get a lot more of the money. That's why I think the RIAA is bad. They are getting in the way of what needs to be done to change the system to benefit both consumers and artists. They're doing this because they realize that the unnecesary middle-men won't be able to leach off of a new system the way they've done with the old. They won't be able to control who gets their music produced and who doesn't. They won't be able to make artists give up their rights to the music they create in return for a chance at making a living as a musician. They realize they might have to make themselves useful for a change.
We have a two-party system going here. The existing government won't let that change because it's what keeps us from ever effecting changes. Unless the democrat and republican candidates are just completely repulsive to the vast majority of voters, no third party candidate stands a chance of winning because people don't want to "throw away their vote" by voting for someone that they think doesn't have a decent chance of winning. Instead of changing to a voting system that allows us to vote without fear of wasting our votes, the government is determined to keep the current system in place. For the majority of office holders, the current system is what got them into office, and they want to keep the system because it's more likely to allow them to get reelected.
Then there's the cost of running a campaign. If you don't have the cash, nobody will have a clue who you are. I'm not old enough to run for any real office, and I don't have the kind of money it takes to run a campaign anyway. So, I guess I'm stuck with the current choices.
You're partially right. Bill Gates is not Satan. He is merely a henchman of Satan. Satan wouldn't be caught dead with a haircut like that.
Seriously though, I don't know if there is really any point in separating attacks on his empire from attacks on him personally. It amounts to the same thing. He IS Microsoft. Sure, he has his minions to do the day-to-day stuff, but there is no doubt that he runs the show. I'll agree that it's overkill to call Microsoft evil in the traditional sense, but we are talking about a company that has been breaking the law, and is now trying to use its money and power to influence politicians to keep from being severely punished.
One could argue that any of us would likely try to fight back and change the law if we felt we were being unjustly prosecuted for something, but I certainly feel that if that were the case, I'd do it openly and try to make an argument that stands on its own merit rather than simply getting an exception made for me under the table. The problem is that Microsoft has tried several times to make a public argument, but they always twist the facts and leave out the parts that don't look so good in the light of day. That doesn't work in court though, so many of these facts were brought to light and, in the end, that's why they lost the case. The facts simply contradicted their arguments almost entirely.
I could understand having.corp and.com domains, but I don't see any real practical difference between a company and a firm that would make it easier on people if they use separate TLDs. We would end up with the same situation we have now where every company tries to register its name under all the major TLDs, and sues anyone that gets in its way.
Oh right, that's happened too. And did anyone owning a gun make a fscking difference?
People aren't going to go out and try to overthrow the government over censorship. It's going to take something much more grievous than that. The vast majority of people don't just start shooting because the government pissed them off. They have to really feel threatened. This has only happened a few times when the government has confronted some of these groups living in "compounds in Montana", and we've seen how those usually end.
One day the government will likely go too far. People might not even realize it at first, but we won't be happy, and we'll eventually figure out why. That's when things could get messy.
Well, let me clue you in honey, PP and all the other abortion providers sell their mailing lists, and it goes on your medical records, anyway.
First of all, even if they do sell your name, they are not allowed to divulge any information on the procedures you've undergone. That's part of your medical record, which they aren't allowed to give out or sell.
When you sign a job application, you're giving permission to get your credit and medical history.
Not sure about anyone else, but I've never signed anything for any company I've worked for that would allow them to have access to my medical record or credit history. The most I've agreed to is a drug test. (except when applying for a government security clearance, which allows the government to root through my credit history and pretty much anything else they like, but they have this capability anyway)
A society without educated citizens is a society that is manipulable by those that run the media.
This is somewhat OT, but I was just talking about this with someone the other day. I was wondering why the government doesn't do a lot more to improve public education in this country. Instead they leave it up to those who can afford the best schools and those few who make it on their own to lead the country. The rest of the people remain inadequately educated, many severely so. As long as education remains at its current shockingly poor level, the country will be full of people who lack the critical thinking skills and background knowledge to effectively evaluate the issues we're faced with every day. Instead, they will rely on the media to tell them what to think about things. This does not bode well for our future as a country.
We're having this discussion because the industry THINKS they are threatened. I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe there is actually a real risk right now. But, it will probably depend on how they behave and on the outcome of some court cases. Either way, there is no immediate threat that I know of.
As sorehands said, they thought for sure that their industry was doomed when VCRs were ruled legal and people were allowed to tape things off the tv and had the ability to make copies of videos. Instead, they ended up making even more money than before. Now they are claiming that the sky is falling again.
Reading the Constitution, it seems pretty vague about copyright length. It simply gives Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited amount of time, but it doesn't define "limited." That seems to be the problem. The corps have pushed their agenda and Congress caved in, screwing the rest of us.
Actually, in my case, the odds would be better if I and the attacker both had a gun rather than him having a knife or bat or whatever and me having access to a similar weapon. I'm not big and I probably wouldn't stand much of a chance if it comes to hand-to-hand fighting. At least with a gun, the odds are a bit more even. If I've practiced enough, the odds might even be in my favor.
This Internet thing must be really growing. We seem to be living on different planets or something. I'm saying this because on my planet, real effects tend to matter a bit more than intentions. Just because cars weren't intended to kill people, doesn't mean they don't do it quite effectively. Should we just make our decisions based on intentions from now on? I think I'll end this post right now before I say something very sarcastic. Thank you, drive through.
A mistake from a gun can end a life - my life, because you made an error in judgement.
By your logic we should outlaw cars. An error in judgement can kill many people, and does, in fact, kill several orders of magnitude more people every year than guns do. Yet I hear nobody crying for the banning of motor vehicles. "Ah, but they're useful" people will say. So what? A gun is very useful to me in providing a defense for my home and family. Is it my fault that some idiots don't know how to take responsibility for a gun? Why should I have the only reasonably effective means of defending my family taken away because of someone else's incompetence? Aside from requiring training (and/or a competence test) for the purchase of a gun, I don't believe I should be restricted in any way from owning weapons for sport or defense. Such training and testing should cut down on the number of accidents quite a bit. Then the vast majority of gun-related injuries and deaths will be caused by criminals, just as they would if you banned guns altogether. (More on this later)
I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society.
Just like they've removed drugs from society. Just like prohibition removed alcohol and its evil effects such as crime from society, right? Wake up. If you ban guns, people will want them even more, because they will suddenly feel defenseless. There will be many people willing to provide those guns too, because it will become a much more lucrative business, just like drugs. Suddenly only criminals and the government will have weapons. As someone who doesn't trust the judgement of others, surely you can understand that people will not like such a situation where they feel even more at the mercy of those in power. I don't trust the judgement of others all that much either. That's exactly why I want the right to possess a gun. In case their bad judgement leads them to assault me or my family.
Try this article if you'd like to see some numbers. Gun violence is actually rising in the UK now, despite the gun ban. This illustrates the point that it's not legal owners of guns that are the problem. It's the criminals who don't give a damn about any gun ban anyway.
Maybe you'd like to provide a link or reference to these "studies." I've seen studies that "prove" all sorts of asinine stuff. I don't buy this without some pretty damn good proof. Nearly all of the kids that have been involved in the shootings over the last few years have had MUCH bigger problems than the video games they were playing or the movies they watched. Nobody says a damn thing about fixing the real problems though.
Grossman is full of crap. Moving a mouse cursor over targets IS NOTHING like firing a gun. The only conceivable way it could have helped him is by improving hand-eye coordination, but even Super Mario Bros. will do that, as will tennis. I read somewhere that the kid had fired guns before too. Grossman probably doesn't mention that. The guy is either an idiot or he's got an agenda that we don't know about.
When it comes to defending myself and my family I'm not going to try to fight off someone with a knife. I'm not going to play games with him. I'm not a big guy and I'm not going to take that kind of chance. It would be stupid. I'm going to shoot the bastard right then and there. I have a much better chance of eliminating the threat that way. Even if the intruder has a gun, I still have a fairly even chance of killing or incapacitating him before he gets me. The odds would be much worse if I didn't have a gun. I'm not willing to take that chance.
Why do I care what a criminal uses to kill me? I want a gun precisely because it's easy to use and very effective. I don't want to try to fight off an attacker with a knife. I'm not a big guy and I probably wouldn't win. The guy has no right to be in my home and no right to threaten my life. If he decides to do those things, I should be well within my rights to shoot him on the spot. I'm not going to play games of chance when it comes to defending myself and my family. I do believe that a person should have to take a training course in order to own a gun though. That would drastically cut down on the stupid accidents that happen when some moron doesn't know how to properly use, clean, and store a gun.
but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Funny how we immediately jump on guns as the reason our country isn't as safe as we think it should be. If we just take away everyone's guns, they won't be able to hurt themselves or others. Damn! It's like we're to be treated like a bunch of kids! I'm not a damn kid. If I choose to own a gun to defend myself and my family, who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't have that right? It's blatantly obvious that cops don't defend us. They get there after we've become victims and fill out paperwork. I don't see any reason why I should have to rely on sheer dumb luck to decide whether the person who breaks into my home will decide to kill me or not. But that's just one argument.
Have you considered that there are several other factors that play a large role in the problem, a larger role, IMHO, than guns even?
Think about the disparity in wealth in this country. Think about the fact that there are literally millions of Americans living below the poverty line. Think about the fact that public education in this country is shockingly bad. I wonder what kind of difference it would make in the violent crime statistics if people could actually support themselves and their family. I wonder what kind of difference it would make if kids got a good education that would give them some direction in life rather than leave them as barely literate punks with nothing to lose. Maybe if we spent some of this money we're using to fight the "war on drugs" on fixing up schools, hiring better teachers and paying them well, and providing better access to technology so that kids can learn something useful, we wouldn't need to have a war on drugs at all. Kids might end up being smart enough to make these decisions in their best interest. They'd have a good chance of making a living and providing for a family. But the government won't do that. It would make too much sense. We spend all kinds of money on national defense and attacking and defending other countries. We spend a bunch to pay interest on a national debt that we have yet to do anything significant to reduce. Why can't we spend this kind of money to educate all the children of this country the best we possibly can, rather than just relying on those who can afford to go to the best schools to become the leaders of this country? Then again, maybe that's the plan after all.
You talk as if DeCSS is contraband of some sort. It's not. It isn't illegal at all, at least for now. There is just a list of individuals and/or entities that are prohibited by injunction from distributing it. 2600 was just telling people where they can find sites that are not prohibited from distributing DeCSS. Therefore, these people are able to obtain the software legally.
Why doesn't the MPAA just come out and say it. "We hereby expressly prohibit you from doing anything with this DVD that we don't want you to do." End of story. Instead they try using vague laws to take away our fair use rights. I wish their losses were a hell of a lot more than $2.5 billion. They deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have some reference to confirm this? From what I've read, the original poster was correct. I'm not at my usual computer right now, so I can't confirm my memory at the moment either, but I think he was right.
I consider napster quite useless for the distribution of legal music from unknown artists, so using it as an example for the possibilities to spread such works is IMO a bad idea.
You've made a suggestion that might make Napster better for distributing legal MP3s, but you haven't proven that it's useless for that purpose without the improvements.
I think that the users of Napster are the ones breaking the law, and while I don't have a problem with them doing that since I think the RIAA is doing things that are every bit as bad, and probably worse, the users are the ones that should be ultimately responsible for their actions, not the software that they used in order to break the law.
The problem isn't napster. It's people who are using it illegally. What these people are suggesting is like shutting down the Internet because it is widely used to commit copyright infringement. You don't go after the internet, you go after the people who are misusing it.
Now, that said, I don't think that Napster is that much of a drain on the music industry. I WANT to support the artists I like. Otherwise I might not be able to get any new music from them because they can't make any money at it. What I don't like is the current setup that the industry has. They make huge profits and most artists barely make a living (if even that). They jack up the cost of music for consumers, while providing no real benefit for us. If we could get our music from the artists without paying for all the unnecessary overhead, we'd pay a lot less for the music and the artists would get a lot more of the money. That's why I think the RIAA is bad. They are getting in the way of what needs to be done to change the system to benefit both consumers and artists. They're doing this because they realize that the unnecesary middle-men won't be able to leach off of a new system the way they've done with the old. They won't be able to control who gets their music produced and who doesn't. They won't be able to make artists give up their rights to the music they create in return for a chance at making a living as a musician. They realize they might have to make themselves useful for a change.
We have a two-party system going here. The existing government won't let that change because it's what keeps us from ever effecting changes. Unless the democrat and republican candidates are just completely repulsive to the vast majority of voters, no third party candidate stands a chance of winning because people don't want to "throw away their vote" by voting for someone that they think doesn't have a decent chance of winning. Instead of changing to a voting system that allows us to vote without fear of wasting our votes, the government is determined to keep the current system in place. For the majority of office holders, the current system is what got them into office, and they want to keep the system because it's more likely to allow them to get reelected.
Then there's the cost of running a campaign. If you don't have the cash, nobody will have a clue who you are. I'm not old enough to run for any real office, and I don't have the kind of money it takes to run a campaign anyway. So, I guess I'm stuck with the current choices.
You're partially right. Bill Gates is not Satan. He is merely a henchman of Satan. Satan wouldn't be caught dead with a haircut like that.
Seriously though, I don't know if there is really any point in separating attacks on his empire from attacks on him personally. It amounts to the same thing. He IS Microsoft. Sure, he has his minions to do the day-to-day stuff, but there is no doubt that he runs the show. I'll agree that it's overkill to call Microsoft evil in the traditional sense, but we are talking about a company that has been breaking the law, and is now trying to use its money and power to influence politicians to keep from being severely punished.
One could argue that any of us would likely try to fight back and change the law if we felt we were being unjustly prosecuted for something, but I certainly feel that if that were the case, I'd do it openly and try to make an argument that stands on its own merit rather than simply getting an exception made for me under the table. The problem is that Microsoft has tried several times to make a public argument, but they always twist the facts and leave out the parts that don't look so good in the light of day. That doesn't work in court though, so many of these facts were brought to light and, in the end, that's why they lost the case. The facts simply contradicted their arguments almost entirely.
I could understand having .corp and .com domains, but I don't see any real practical difference between a company and a firm that would make it easier on people if they use separate TLDs. We would end up with the same situation we have now where every company tries to register its name under all the major TLDs, and sues anyone that gets in its way.
Oh right, that's happened too. And did anyone owning a gun make a fscking difference?
People aren't going to go out and try to overthrow the government over censorship. It's going to take something much more grievous than that. The vast majority of people don't just start shooting because the government pissed them off. They have to really feel threatened. This has only happened a few times when the government has confronted some of these groups living in "compounds in Montana", and we've seen how those usually end.
One day the government will likely go too far. People might not even realize it at first, but we won't be happy, and we'll eventually figure out why. That's when things could get messy.
Well, let me clue you in honey, PP and all the other abortion providers sell their mailing lists, and it goes on your medical records, anyway.
First of all, even if they do sell your name, they are not allowed to divulge any information on the procedures you've undergone. That's part of your medical record, which they aren't allowed to give out or sell.
When you sign a job application, you're giving permission to get your credit and medical history.
Not sure about anyone else, but I've never signed anything for any company I've worked for that would allow them to have access to my medical record or credit history. The most I've agreed to is a drug test. (except when applying for a government security clearance, which allows the government to root through my credit history and pretty much anything else they like, but they have this capability anyway)
A society without educated citizens is a society that is manipulable by those that run the media.
This is somewhat OT, but I was just talking about this with someone the other day. I was wondering why the government doesn't do a lot more to improve public education in this country. Instead they leave it up to those who can afford the best schools and those few who make it on their own to lead the country. The rest of the people remain inadequately educated, many severely so. As long as education remains at its current shockingly poor level, the country will be full of people who lack the critical thinking skills and background knowledge to effectively evaluate the issues we're faced with every day. Instead, they will rely on the media to tell them what to think about things. This does not bode well for our future as a country.
We're having this discussion because the industry THINKS they are threatened. I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe there is actually a real risk right now. But, it will probably depend on how they behave and on the outcome of some court cases. Either way, there is no immediate threat that I know of.
As sorehands said, they thought for sure that their industry was doomed when VCRs were ruled legal and people were allowed to tape things off the tv and had the ability to make copies of videos. Instead, they ended up making even more money than before. Now they are claiming that the sky is falling again.
Reading the Constitution, it seems pretty vague about copyright length. It simply gives Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited amount of time, but it doesn't define "limited." That seems to be the problem. The corps have pushed their agenda and Congress caved in, screwing the rest of us.
Actually, in my case, the odds would be better if I and the attacker both had a gun rather than him having a knife or bat or whatever and me having access to a similar weapon. I'm not big and I probably wouldn't stand much of a chance if it comes to hand-to-hand fighting. At least with a gun, the odds are a bit more even. If I've practiced enough, the odds might even be in my favor.
That's an argument?
This Internet thing must be really growing. We seem to be living on different planets or something. I'm saying this because on my planet, real effects tend to matter a bit more than intentions. Just because cars weren't intended to kill people, doesn't mean they don't do it quite effectively. Should we just make our decisions based on intentions from now on? I think I'll end this post right now before I say something very sarcastic. Thank you, drive through.
A mistake from a gun can end a life - my life, because you made an error in judgement.
By your logic we should outlaw cars. An error in judgement can kill many people, and does, in fact, kill several orders of magnitude more people every year than guns do. Yet I hear nobody crying for the banning of motor vehicles. "Ah, but they're useful" people will say. So what? A gun is very useful to me in providing a defense for my home and family. Is it my fault that some idiots don't know how to take responsibility for a gun? Why should I have the only reasonably effective means of defending my family taken away because of someone else's incompetence? Aside from requiring training (and/or a competence test) for the purchase of a gun, I don't believe I should be restricted in any way from owning weapons for sport or defense. Such training and testing should cut down on the number of accidents quite a bit. Then the vast majority of gun-related injuries and deaths will be caused by criminals, just as they would if you banned guns altogether. (More on this later)
I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society.
Just like they've removed drugs from society. Just like prohibition removed alcohol and its evil effects such as crime from society, right? Wake up. If you ban guns, people will want them even more, because they will suddenly feel defenseless. There will be many people willing to provide those guns too, because it will become a much more lucrative business, just like drugs. Suddenly only criminals and the government will have weapons. As someone who doesn't trust the judgement of others, surely you can understand that people will not like such a situation where they feel even more at the mercy of those in power. I don't trust the judgement of others all that much either. That's exactly why I want the right to possess a gun. In case their bad judgement leads them to assault me or my family.
Try this article if you'd like to see some numbers. Gun violence is actually rising in the UK now, despite the gun ban. This illustrates the point that it's not legal owners of guns that are the problem. It's the criminals who don't give a damn about any gun ban anyway.
Maybe you'd like to provide a link or reference to these "studies." I've seen studies that "prove" all sorts of asinine stuff. I don't buy this without some pretty damn good proof. Nearly all of the kids that have been involved in the shootings over the last few years have had MUCH bigger problems than the video games they were playing or the movies they watched. Nobody says a damn thing about fixing the real problems though.
Grossman is full of crap. Moving a mouse cursor over targets IS NOTHING like firing a gun. The only conceivable way it could have helped him is by improving hand-eye coordination, but even Super Mario Bros. will do that, as will tennis. I read somewhere that the kid had fired guns before too. Grossman probably doesn't mention that. The guy is either an idiot or he's got an agenda that we don't know about.
When it comes to defending myself and my family I'm not going to try to fight off someone with a knife. I'm not going to play games with him. I'm not a big guy and I'm not going to take that kind of chance. It would be stupid. I'm going to shoot the bastard right then and there. I have a much better chance of eliminating the threat that way. Even if the intruder has a gun, I still have a fairly even chance of killing or incapacitating him before he gets me. The odds would be much worse if I didn't have a gun. I'm not willing to take that chance.
Why do I care what a criminal uses to kill me? I want a gun precisely because it's easy to use and very effective. I don't want to try to fight off an attacker with a knife. I'm not a big guy and I probably wouldn't win. The guy has no right to be in my home and no right to threaten my life. If he decides to do those things, I should be well within my rights to shoot him on the spot. I'm not going to play games of chance when it comes to defending myself and my family. I do believe that a person should have to take a training course in order to own a gun though. That would drastically cut down on the stupid accidents that happen when some moron doesn't know how to properly use, clean, and store a gun.
but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Funny how we immediately jump on guns as the reason our country isn't as safe as we think it should be. If we just take away everyone's guns, they won't be able to hurt themselves or others. Damn! It's like we're to be treated like a bunch of kids! I'm not a damn kid. If I choose to own a gun to defend myself and my family, who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't have that right? It's blatantly obvious that cops don't defend us. They get there after we've become victims and fill out paperwork. I don't see any reason why I should have to rely on sheer dumb luck to decide whether the person who breaks into my home will decide to kill me or not. But that's just one argument.
Have you considered that there are several other factors that play a large role in the problem, a larger role, IMHO, than guns even?
Think about the disparity in wealth in this country. Think about the fact that there are literally millions of Americans living below the poverty line. Think about the fact that public education in this country is shockingly bad. I wonder what kind of difference it would make in the violent crime statistics if people could actually support themselves and their family. I wonder what kind of difference it would make if kids got a good education that would give them some direction in life rather than leave them as barely literate punks with nothing to lose. Maybe if we spent some of this money we're using to fight the "war on drugs" on fixing up schools, hiring better teachers and paying them well, and providing better access to technology so that kids can learn something useful, we wouldn't need to have a war on drugs at all. Kids might end up being smart enough to make these decisions in their best interest. They'd have a good chance of making a living and providing for a family. But the government won't do that. It would make too much sense. We spend all kinds of money on national defense and attacking and defending other countries. We spend a bunch to pay interest on a national debt that we have yet to do anything significant to reduce. Why can't we spend this kind of money to educate all the children of this country the best we possibly can, rather than just relying on those who can afford to go to the best schools to become the leaders of this country? Then again, maybe that's the plan after all.
You talk as if DeCSS is contraband of some sort. It's not. It isn't illegal at all, at least for now. There is just a list of individuals and/or entities that are prohibited by injunction from distributing it. 2600 was just telling people where they can find sites that are not prohibited from distributing DeCSS. Therefore, these people are able to obtain the software legally.
Actually, the legality of using DeCSS in the course of exercising your fair use rights has yet to be determined by a court of law.
Next thing you know, you'll tell us that freon should be illegal because car thieves use it to get rid of the club in a heartbeat.
Freon IS illegal, isn't it? Maybe I missed some sarcasm or something.
2. Source code is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Is HTML considered source code? It's doesn't really do anything until it's interpreted by a browser.
Why doesn't the MPAA just come out and say it. "We hereby expressly prohibit you from doing anything with this DVD that we don't want you to do." End of story. Instead they try using vague laws to take away our fair use rights. I wish their losses were a hell of a lot more than $2.5 billion. They deserve it.