If people needed to call HazMat every time a light bulb broke, it would be an incredible drain on the government's resources. The government can't afford that. So they naturally tell us not to bother them with that sort of thing. Hopefully I'm just being paranoid:-)
Anyway, the Snopes page is not as clear cut as you're making it out to be - it looks like Maine's DEP told a woman to hire a specialized cleaning crew to come into the house and clean up (they quoted her a price of $2000).
Also, you're assuming both parties are fully rational and capable, but what if a contract was signed under duress? Or without full understanding of the legal consequences?
For example, if someone's cable company snuck in a clause into the fine print that if they don't pay within 90 days, the cable company could have them killed, or enslave them, the doctrine of inalienable rights would invalidate that section of the contract, since no one can sign away their right to life.
Corporations (credit card companies, the RIAA, health insurance companies) have shown no compunction for ruining someone's life for a buck. Inalienable rights doctrine puts a cap on that tendency.
As for the "creator" aspect, I don't really care *why* the founders believed in inalienable rights. I do think the world would be a much uglier place without them.
This is true, but doesn't account for aliasing: "Music, for instance, may contain high-frequency components that are inaudible to us. If we sample it with a frequency that is too low and reconstruct the music with a digital to analog converter, we may hear the low-frequency aliases of the undersampled high frequencies. Therefore, it is common practice to remove the high frequencies with a filter before the sampling is done." (from Wikipedia, which said it better than I was going to).
I'm not sure how to cite this properly, but here goes (page 412 in the PDF):
SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--...
(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.
"Technology-based deterrents" are of course software packages promoted by the RIAA. Seems pretty clear (and pretty bad) to me...
From the lead and first paragraph of TFA (emphasis mine):
New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.
Why should the editors increase some newspaper's hit counter instead? Do they deserve the hits more than the blogger for some reason? I'd bet that the "real" paper's version is just an embellished press release anyway.
I highly recommend PBF Comics. There are lots of comics that are funny - few that are brilliant.
(I picked a very funny one pretty much at random. Also, not all the comics are SFW...)
The judge will admire to himself how cute he looks, then judge him guilty as charged. Guilty of what, exactly? Asserting his civil rights? I find it disturbing that people consider that a crime.
The implicit attitude here seems to be that we're all guilty until proven innocent.
Absolutely on the money - the trend in this country has been to shift rights from the individual to companies. It completely sucks.
The only thing I don't get is when you say "because the people I've worked for have had THEIR clients force [the 'spare time agreement'] upon THEM". Companies don't have spare time. Only real people do:-)
I was referring to the *ought* part;-) Governments ought not be allowed to put any intellectual property restrictions (trademarks, copyright, etc) on publicly-funded work. The only valid restrictions would be fraud-related (e.g. putting up a website that pretends to be the LOC, printing counterfeit money, or impersonating a police officer).
He's simply explaining what the law actually is. It has nothing to do with what he actually believes. If you don't like the law, write your congressperson. Shooting the messenger makes you sound like a blithering idiot.
I agree - I wouldn't say this is an intellectual property issue at all. As scummy as DRM and the MPAA are, it's reasonable to expect that they wouldn't want a password that they're trying to keep secret exposed.
That said, I think the issue is that they're using the DMCA to take down the number.
No - it's a series of information superhighways:-) Well actually, it's more like the road system in its entirety. There are superhighways and there are dirt roads, and there's everything in between. Each road has its own capacity and maximum speed, and the time it takes to complete a trip from point A to point B is affected by each leg of the trip. The "last mile" is the local road where a person's house is actually located, and tends to be much slower than the highways leading to the person's neighborhood.
It sounds like you're against any regulations at all! "Why shouldn't I be able to dump toxic waste in my property? Why shouldn't I be able to sell cola with cocaine in it? Why shouldn't I be able to defraud my customers?" Because it's harmful to the public. Breaking net neutrality is harmful for the public because it will break the internet. What you're prescribing is not capitalism - it's anarchy.
This sort of horror story strikes me as typical. I remember when I was in high school, a bunch of kids got busted for pot. They were separated and each told that if they ratted on their friends, they wouldn't get expelled. They did, and got expelled anyway. Cooperating with the school administration is almost always a no-no - the only reason I could think of to be a "Good Samaritan" in high school is to kiss the principal's ass. And that's the best case scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
If people needed to call HazMat every time a light bulb broke, it would be an incredible drain on the government's resources. The government can't afford that. So they naturally tell us not to bother them with that sort of thing. Hopefully I'm just being paranoid :-)
Anyway, the Snopes page is not as clear cut as you're making it out to be - it looks like Maine's DEP told a woman to hire a specialized cleaning crew to come into the house and clean up (they quoted her a price of $2000).
Also, you're assuming both parties are fully rational and capable, but what if a contract was signed under duress? Or without full understanding of the legal consequences?
For example, if someone's cable company snuck in a clause into the fine print that if they don't pay within 90 days, the cable company could have them killed, or enslave them, the doctrine of inalienable rights would invalidate that section of the contract, since no one can sign away their right to life.
Corporations (credit card companies, the RIAA, health insurance companies) have shown no compunction for ruining someone's life for a buck. Inalienable rights doctrine puts a cap on that tendency.
As for the "creator" aspect, I don't really care *why* the founders believed in inalienable rights. I do think the world would be a much uglier place without them.
There is such thing as inalienable rights...
This is true, but doesn't account for aliasing: "Music, for instance, may contain high-frequency components that are inaudible to us. If we sample it with a frequency that is too low and reconstruct the music with a digital to analog converter, we may hear the low-frequency aliases of the undersampled high frequencies. Therefore, it is common practice to remove the high frequencies with a filter before the sampling is done." (from Wikipedia, which said it better than I was going to).
Arianna Huffington wrote a whole book on the topic in 2000 (well before Bush): How to Overthrow the Government. It's a fantastic read.
Why should the editors increase some newspaper's hit counter instead? Do they deserve the hits more than the blogger for some reason? I'd bet that the "real" paper's version is just an embellished press release anyway.
I highly recommend PBF Comics. There are lots of comics that are funny - few that are brilliant. (I picked a very funny one pretty much at random. Also, not all the comics are SFW...)
Television can be centrally controlled. The internet cannot. Politicians are much more comfortable with top-down media.
Absolutely on the money - the trend in this country has been to shift rights from the individual to companies. It completely sucks.
:-)
The only thing I don't get is when you say "because the people I've worked for have had THEIR clients force [the 'spare time agreement'] upon THEM". Companies don't have spare time. Only real people do
Wow - a female from Beverly Hills? I'm interested, no matter how old you are!
Ok Ok. But I think I found REALLY prior art.
That one should pay off pretty quickly :-)
I was referring to the *ought* part ;-) Governments ought not be allowed to put any intellectual property restrictions (trademarks, copyright, etc) on publicly-funded work. The only valid restrictions would be fraud-related (e.g. putting up a website that pretends to be the LOC, printing counterfeit money, or impersonating a police officer).
I felt the same way when New York's MTA copyrighted the subway map (Here's Jeff Jarvis on the issue).
He's simply explaining what the law actually is. It has nothing to do with what he actually believes. If you don't like the law, write your congressperson. Shooting the messenger makes you sound like a blithering idiot.
I agree - I wouldn't say this is an intellectual property issue at all. As scummy as DRM and the MPAA are, it's reasonable to expect that they wouldn't want a password that they're trying to keep secret exposed.
That said, I think the issue is that they're using the DMCA to take down the number.
No - it's a series of information superhighways :-)
Well actually, it's more like the road system in its entirety. There are superhighways and there are dirt roads, and there's everything in between. Each road has its own capacity and maximum speed, and the time it takes to complete a trip from point A to point B is affected by each leg of the trip. The "last mile" is the local road where a person's house is actually located, and tends to be much slower than the highways leading to the person's neighborhood.
It sounds like you're against any regulations at all! "Why shouldn't I be able to dump toxic waste in my property? Why shouldn't I be able to sell cola with cocaine in it? Why shouldn't I be able to defraud my customers?" Because it's harmful to the public. Breaking net neutrality is harmful for the public because it will break the internet. What you're prescribing is not capitalism - it's anarchy.
That's funny - I thought that profit was the motivation behind cloning in the first place.
This is the reason behind ALL corporate action.
This sort of horror story strikes me as typical. I remember when I was in high school, a bunch of kids got busted for pot. They were separated and each told that if they ratted on their friends, they wouldn't get expelled. They did, and got expelled anyway. Cooperating with the school administration is almost always a no-no - the only reason I could think of to be a "Good Samaritan" in high school is to kiss the principal's ass. And that's the best case scenario.
Ask the citizens of Oceania if they feel safe.
Most of these lists are crap. "20 Best" this, "15 Worst" that. Who gives a shit? I wish /. would stop posting these things...