Set aside rights of way for infrastructure. Make those rights of way available as franchises to all infrastructure providers. That way, it will be harder for one provider to behave like a dictatorial monopoly.
Don't let the infrastructure providers (the people who own the cables) get into the content business.
The Constitution protects citizens from improper governmental action.
If a burglar breaks into your house, illegally, and discovers a huge marijuana grow operation, the government has done nothing wrong. The government can use the crook's evidence against you. On the other hand, if the burglar was working for the government then the evidence will be thrown out of court.
If you put a proposition to the vote that would eliminate all taxes and double all government services, I bet that a freakishly large number of people would vote for it. Much of the/. membership takes no responsibility for governmental actions--they're just passive whiners.
Many people will SAY anything. I've seen people on/. advocate the murder of people who hold views of copyright different from their own. Extreme positions get amplified on the internet because extreme people can easily interact with other like-minded extreme people. That's all fine and dandy, so long as it's just idiots saying stupid stuff. Freedom of speech, whatever.
The problem for me is that there is a very small minority of people who can be triggered to act by the incitement of others. These people will reach out and HURT people with little or no factual support. Unless stopped, people like this exert an evil influence all out of proportion to their otherwise insignificant place in society. Nazis did that kind of stuff in the 1930s and it really chilled the behavior of other law-abiding Germans. A real turd-Kultur was created there. That kind of history ought best not be repeated.
If people alter their behavior because they are afraid of being tormented by Internet-spawned wrongful "meat world" attacks, then they are not free. Balancing protection from such acts with the right to freely interact on the internet is a serious legal and moral challenge.
Getting rid of the physical book format eliminates a lot of costs, as well as tremendous barriers to entry. Anybody can now write and publish a school textbook that California can use. This presents a wonderful opportunity for Creative Commons licensing.
I have a hard time understanding why any state would buy copyrighted books. It seems to me that states would be better off if they commissioned for hire textbooks and published those books with a creative commons license. Once the books were available to all for edit and modification, people could refine the content and modify it for the future.
This might not work at first for politically charged stuff like English and the social sciences, but it would be really interesting to try with math, the hard sciences, and the practical arts.
The debate over content would be really fascinating to watch!
A lien is one legal answer that I can think of. The lien would need to attach at the time of the software purchase. It couldn't attach when the company goes insolvent, because those kinds of laws are invalidated by the Bankruptcy Code. It couldn't attach when the service shuts down, because the service would probably shut down while the provider was in bankruptcy and the automatic stay would keep the lien from attaching while the bankruptcy is going on. A lien is super good. It gives every creditor the best seat at the bankruptcy table.
The lien I'm thinking of would be a first priority lien in all the software and documentation used to administer the DRM system. Every customer would get the right to foreclose on this lien when the DRM unlock service is dropped by the provider.
This kind of thing would resonate with the legislature because it would REALLY resonate with the general public. This is a problem EVERYBODY can understand. Legislators have kids with IPODS too!
Another option would be a statutorily-mandated escrow system that puts the DRM in trust.
Presentation of these kinds of ideas would get the ball rolling. Maybe a better idea would be found, or a worse one. Anything is better than the current system.
This is a battle big media cannot fight, because they can't be seen to be claiming the right to fuck you out of your expensively-purchased media libraries so they can resell the same stuff to you later.
This is the kind of problem that gets fixed in a republic like ours. If you care, you should go for it.
The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial. If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection. If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).
It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object. HA!
Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document. It's really easy and relatively cheap. But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.
They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!
It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove. They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.
I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard. Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law. HA!
In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack (the peloton) and try to race to the front.
The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind. Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.
Most times though, for various tactical reasons, they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed. While they're squirreling around, the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.
BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software. They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values. They each take different routes. BND is not as radical as GNU, but GNU does more to hamper closed software. Nevertheless, they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.
Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally. AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to! But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!! It makes for a better race!!
Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court. Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle. Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period. Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made. Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative, and got something quite different.
The Court of Appeals judges (like Sotomayor) are bound by existing law and precedent. They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution. Once they go to the Supreme Court, they have the complete, unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.
TFA is just speculative nonsense./. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters. Aargh, matey.
Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.
A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free. It's not libre and it's not gratis. It's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright. There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.
FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product. A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.
FOSS is like the Blob, though (most of the time). When the blob gets big enough, it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses. You can't expect people to quit making money (or to quit thinking that they are making money) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob.
Yeah, we need to be self-sufficient in our ability to make crappy cars that people don't want to buy so that fat executives can bring home obscene paychecks.
One approach appears to be relatively obvious: Use journalistic content to persuade people to come to your Craigslist-style site, rather than the Craigslist-style site that has no journalism.
Linux either isn't competing with Windows or is competing very, very badly with Windows. If Linux was competing, we'd see lower prices from MS, a noticeably better product, or a diminishing MS market share. Those things are not happening. Windows dominates Linux in the laptop and desktop world.
Windows dominates because it can mobilize developers to write Windows programs. It is as simple as that. Developers write for Windows because they have a far greater chance of making money when they develop for Windows than they do when they develop for Linux.
If the GNU tribe REALLY wanted to compete with Windows it would EMBRACE it by making all Windows programs execute as flawlessly on Linux as they do on Windows. When that happens, competition is possible. Linux starts to kick ass then, because it is free. Then, Linux can be EXTENDED to afford greater developer power and flexibility. Only after that stuff will any competition happen. That's when things could get interesting.
But the people of the GNU (those who do all the work) are NOT doing these steps necessary for competition. Why is that? Why? Why? Maybe they have another agenda. Maybe they just want to develop something really cool that works good for their purposes? Maybe they don't care about winning corporate mindshare?? Maybe they derive satisfaction from creating a finely wrought product that generates respect for their work or that works for their employer?
The anti-MS trolls just like to whine. If they really cared, they'd do the really really hard work and fork Linux into a fully Windows-compatible environment.
But they won't do that. They'd rather whine and say how defective Windows is and how they'd never want to create a Windows clone.
This brings us back to the starting point.
If you are not prepared to embrace the enemy that is dominating you, you won't be able to extend your capabilities beyond his capabilities and you'll never be able to extinguish him. So,if you're not prepared to do this very hard (and maybe technically stupid) work. . . .
Stop all the jabbering about competition and get on with helping make Linux friendly for you and your friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Look on the bright side. A volcano just does what it does. It won't try to hold a city hostage like professional sports teams do!
Set aside rights of way for infrastructure. Make those rights of way available as franchises to all infrastructure providers. That way, it will be harder for one provider to behave like a dictatorial monopoly.
Don't let the infrastructure providers (the people who own the cables) get into the content business.
Thank goodness most criminals impulsively fail to plan!
Of course, if the crooks planned they probably wouldn't do most of the criminal stuff.
WE are not fucked. If the lady is a pirate, she may be.
If you STEAL, you PAY.
Only schadenfreude for the thieves, baby!
No, you silly fool. Nationalism is not an invention of the rich. Nationalism is an evolution from feudalism, which evolved from tribalism.
As if human beings could actually invent and implement something as complex as nationalism. HAHA!
The Constitution protects citizens from improper governmental action.
If a burglar breaks into your house, illegally, and discovers a huge marijuana grow operation, the government has done nothing wrong. The government can use the crook's evidence against you. On the other hand, if the burglar was working for the government then the evidence will be thrown out of court.
Nothing new here.
If you put a proposition to the vote that would eliminate all taxes and double all government services, I bet that a freakishly large number of people would vote for it. Much of the /. membership takes no responsibility for governmental actions--they're just passive whiners.
Does this portend the demise of Canadian software patents?
Will Microsoft retaliate?
Tune in again next week.
Same bat-time!
Same bat-channel!
Many people will SAY anything. I've seen people on /. advocate the murder of people who hold views of copyright different from their own. Extreme positions get amplified on the internet because extreme people can easily interact with other like-minded extreme people. That's all fine and dandy, so long as it's just idiots saying stupid stuff. Freedom of speech, whatever.
The problem for me is that there is a very small minority of people who can be triggered to act by the incitement of others. These people will reach out and HURT people with little or no factual support. Unless stopped, people like this exert an evil influence all out of proportion to their otherwise insignificant place in society. Nazis did that kind of stuff in the 1930s and it really chilled the behavior of other law-abiding Germans. A real turd-Kultur was created there. That kind of history ought best not be repeated.
If people alter their behavior because they are afraid of being tormented by Internet-spawned wrongful "meat world" attacks, then they are not free. Balancing protection from such acts with the right to freely interact on the internet is a serious legal and moral challenge.
Getting rid of the physical book format eliminates a lot of costs, as well as tremendous barriers to entry. Anybody can now write and publish a school textbook that California can use. This presents a wonderful opportunity for Creative Commons licensing.
I have a hard time understanding why any state would buy copyrighted books. It seems to me that states would be better off if they commissioned for hire textbooks and published those books with a creative commons license. Once the books were available to all for edit and modification, people could refine the content and modify it for the future.
This might not work at first for politically charged stuff like English and the social sciences, but it would be really interesting to try with math, the hard sciences, and the practical arts.
The debate over content would be really fascinating to watch!
What a wonderful slashvertisement! Support the Pacific NW economy! Support Boeing!
People who don't respect intellectual property would naturally have no regard for another person's interest in the integrity of his or her own name.
I'd bet that the choice of community college was mainly driven by convenience.
A lien is one legal answer that I can think of. The lien would need to attach at the time of the software purchase. It couldn't attach when the company goes insolvent, because those kinds of laws are invalidated by the Bankruptcy Code. It couldn't attach when the service shuts down, because the service would probably shut down while the provider was in bankruptcy and the automatic stay would keep the lien from attaching while the bankruptcy is going on. A lien is super good. It gives every creditor the best seat at the bankruptcy table.
The lien I'm thinking of would be a first priority lien in all the software and documentation used to administer the DRM system. Every customer would get the right to foreclose on this lien when the DRM unlock service is dropped by the provider.
This kind of thing would resonate with the legislature because it would REALLY resonate with the general public. This is a problem EVERYBODY can understand. Legislators have kids with IPODS too!
Another option would be a statutorily-mandated escrow system that puts the DRM in trust.
Presentation of these kinds of ideas would get the ball rolling. Maybe a better idea would be found, or a worse one. Anything is better than the current system.
This is a battle big media cannot fight, because they can't be seen to be claiming the right to fuck you out of your expensively-purchased media libraries so they can resell the same stuff to you later.
This is the kind of problem that gets fixed in a republic like ours. If you care, you should go for it.
The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial. If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection. If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).
It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object. HA!
Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document. It's really easy and relatively cheap. But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.
They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!
It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove. They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.
I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard. Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law. HA!
NO!! Reuters is a guy! He looks just like Edward G. Robinson! I saw him on TV the other day.
In bicycle racing oftentimes a group of people zoom out ahead of the pack (the peloton) and try to race to the front.
The only way those people can even hope to get to the end before the peloton is if they work together and share the aerodynamic load of breaking the wind. Sometimes they work together harmoniously right to almost the very end--then they race it out between themselves.
Most times though, for various tactical reasons, they get squirreley with each other and refuse to cooperate evenly to maximize speed. While they're squirreling around, the peloton bears down on them and swallows them up.
BSD and GNU are on a breakaway from closed source software. They each want an ecosystem where sharing and cooperation are the primary values. They each take different routes. BND is not as radical as GNU, but GNU does more to hamper closed software. Nevertheless, they are each in a breakaway from the closed source peloton.
Mindshare gains are to not accomplished by wasting energy squabbling with your logical ally. AFTER sufficient mindshare has been won from closed source--then squabble and be stupid if you want to! But meanwhile--cooperate on the breakaway!!!! It makes for a better race!!
Keep on thinking that you're completely anonymous when you use a prepaid cellphone.
Think why you might not be . . . ..
Come on now . . .
Think . . . .
You'll get it . . .
Is Gartner a division of Microsoft?
Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California to the Supreme Court. Warren was a centrist with broad support on both sides of the aisle. Warren led the Supreme Court through a remarkably liberal period. Eisenhower later publicly rued the choice he made. Bush the Elder nominated Souter as a conservative, and got something quite different.
The Court of Appeals judges (like Sotomayor) are bound by existing law and precedent. They never get the opportunity to be the final word on the Constitution. Once they go to the Supreme Court, they have the complete, unobstructed freedom to change--and they often do.
TFA is just speculative nonsense. /. is just putting it out because it starts little flame wars between the piracy lovers and the piracy haters. Aargh, matey.
Parent is one of the few things worth reading on this silly thread.
A copyright license that requires the performance of work is not free. It's not libre and it's not gratis. It's you making somebody do something in exchange for the use of your copyright. There is no distinction in this context between requiring the exchange of money and requiring the exchange of work.
FOSS will never penetrate a business that derives competitive advantage from software development unless somebody outside the business destroys that competitive advantage with a superior FOSS product. A corollary of this applies to businesses who mistakenly think that they derive a competitive advantage from software development.
FOSS is like the Blob, though (most of the time). When the blob gets big enough, it destroys the salability of the for-profit software software it encompasses. You can't expect people to quit making money (or to quit thinking that they are making money) from private software until they are swallowed by the blob.
Yeah, we need to be self-sufficient in our ability to make crappy cars that people don't want to buy so that fat executives can bring home obscene paychecks.
Yeah, sure.
I think garbage is allocated memory that is no longer needed.
One approach appears to be relatively obvious: Use journalistic content to persuade people to come to your Craigslist-style site, rather than the Craigslist-style site that has no journalism.
Value-Added Craigslistism!
Linux either isn't competing with Windows or is competing very, very badly with Windows. If Linux was competing, we'd see lower prices from MS, a noticeably better product, or a diminishing MS market share. Those things are not happening. Windows dominates Linux in the laptop and desktop world.
Windows dominates because it can mobilize developers to write Windows programs. It is as simple as that. Developers write for Windows because they have a far greater chance of making money when they develop for Windows than they do when they develop for Linux.
If the GNU tribe REALLY wanted to compete with Windows it would EMBRACE it by making all Windows programs execute as flawlessly on Linux as they do on Windows. When that happens, competition is possible. Linux starts to kick ass then, because it is free. Then, Linux can be EXTENDED to afford greater developer power and flexibility. Only after that stuff will any competition happen. That's when things could get interesting.
But the people of the GNU (those who do all the work) are NOT doing these steps necessary for competition. Why is that? Why? Why? Maybe they have another agenda. Maybe they just want to develop something really cool that works good for their purposes? Maybe they don't care about winning corporate mindshare?? Maybe they derive satisfaction from creating a finely wrought product that generates respect for their work or that works for their employer?
The anti-MS trolls just like to whine. If they really cared, they'd do the really really hard work and fork Linux into a fully Windows-compatible environment.
But they won't do that. They'd rather whine and say how defective Windows is and how they'd never want to create a Windows clone.
This brings us back to the starting point.
If you are not prepared to embrace the enemy that is dominating you, you won't be able to extend your capabilities beyond his capabilities and you'll never be able to extinguish him. So,if you're not prepared to do this very hard (and maybe technically stupid) work. . . .
Stop all the jabbering about competition and get on with helping make Linux friendly for you and your friends.