> "They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged... They studied the problem in all its dimensions, through multiple hearings."
That was in 1999... thirteen years ago. Things have changed a ton since then, both in advents of the media industries and in terms of how media is distributed online.
> "When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is? Wikipedia, Google and others manufactured controversy by unfairly equating SOPA with censorship. They also argued misleadingly that the bills would have required Web sites to “monitor” what their users upload, conveniently ignoring provisions like the “No Duty to Monitor” section."
The 1:1 equation of piracy to theft is enough of a debate. If we want to get technical, no "stolen goods" are being fenced online. There is not a 1:1 loss from a pirated item online. Second, there are "no need to monitor" in the bills. However, if you don't take down an offending piece of material, your entire site could be at risk to be taken down by the provisions in the bills - not exactly giving companies incentive to not monitor.
> "When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations."
Both Wikipedia and Google actually released detailed press statements expressing the dire concerns of the bills in order to justify their campaigning against it. WikiMedia even explained that Wikipedia is remaining a neutral site - but the company that owns it is just fine in presenting it's on viewpoints. A news organization should remain neutral - an owning company is free to express views and fund politicians however it wants.
> "That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.”"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> "The violation of neutrality is a patent hypocrisy: these companies have long argued that Internet service providers (telecommunications and cable companies) had to be regulated under the doctrine of “net neutrality”..."
No... no, that's not really what's going on. He's attempting to make a point that could be equated to saying that the First Amendment "regulates" speech.
> "Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans?"
Um... I... what? This doesn't make any sense.
> "Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree."
OUCH MY BRAIN. Seriously. Like, really? Are you kidding me? So we're... trying to say that by stopping organizations and laws who's entire goal will result in mass censorship... we're the ones offending free speech? MY LOGIC IS BLEEDING.
> "Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives."
Steam, Origin, NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu, many proposed music alternatives, there have been plenty of alternatives proposed by lots of companies and private organizations. And they've all been rejected because the big media companies don't want to give up the stranglehold of distribution they have.
> "We all share the goal of a safe and legal Internet."
"Safe and legal" doesn't exactly sound like "free and open" to me. Kind of ominous, really. Man, the more I think about "safe and legal" the more that really just sounds incredibly awkward and dark.
...I suppose on what is really being paid for. Are you paying for someone to spin an article in your favor, or are you simply paying to make sure that the article is well done, well formatted, and grammatically correct. I see no objections to the latter, honestly.
I think the issue that's here in this case is not that she is guilty or innocent, but what the RIAA is doing to win the case (attempted denial of a future lawyer, etc), and how much they want to take from her. Even though she is likely guilty, what she is guilty of is still insanely disproportional to what the RIAA is trying to get from her in exchange.
That's my opinion, at least.
The trouble is that it's a cyclical thing. People start downloading things for free. Companies increase their DRM/Copyright policies, which interfere with people enjoying the product, which leads to more people downloading to avoid increasingly draconian policies, which makes the companies increase their policies even more to combat the growing threat...
The issue isn't that one is right or that one is wrong. It's that they naturally oppose each other, two groups of extremists, which leave others sitting in the middle.
Just a note.
Legal=/=Right
Illegal=/=Wrong
It was illegal to revolt against Britain in the late 1700s, or to sit on a bus in the front seat in the 1950s if you were black, or to vote if you were a woman until the 1920s. Laws have a terrible history of being wrong.
Am I the only one that considers the military benefits of having a barren, uninhabited, never-populated, no-worries land? I mean, think of the testing applications that could be done where we never have to worry about the effects on other people?
This bill does have the best of intentions behind it. Unfortunately, when put into practice, it would be viciously abused at one point or another. Again, the problem comes of internet anonymity, as mentioned. The problem then becomes, for small artists, personal artists, or writers or photographers, who frequent websites such as, say, deviantART, that post many many works, even a token fee stacks. A $5 fee might not seem like much, but if you have 100 works... well, that speaks for itself.
Think of the little guys, congress. C'mon, stop being fxcktards for ten seconds and think of us.
A brief point... both M (game) and R (movie) ratings prevent viewing or purchasing by those under 17 years old... the "adult" threshold of things is 18. My question is this... what difference does that year make? I think things would be much simpler, make an OT (Older Teen) rating... perhaps 15-16 year olds for mid-level content, and then just push M to 18 years old. With that one year of being a minor in the eyes of the government eliminated, you'd be able to add in a bit more discussion.
Also, I haven't read the comments, but I'm sure it's come up, he's not asking to be allowed to show tons of hardcore sex, he means the issue is that you can't even DISCUSS the issues half the time.
I remember the origi
nal release of FFVII...:) rated T for Animated blood and alchohol reference. Oh, there was also gratuitous cursing (only the F word was censored), lots of romantic interaction and tension between characters, and even a (mainly goofy, and not taken seriously) option for who Cloud went on a date with at the Golden Saucer based on character interactions... Tifa, Aeris, or BARRET.
Not marked for that though.
No, but book reviews help you decide if you want to spend the time/effort reading the book.
So, blogs can help pique interest in a story that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.
Does anyone have a link to an article about this movement that ISN'T slanted so far it's almost vertical? I'm interested in reading into the details, but don't want to be shoved with either OMG US R DOOMED or trying to sugarcoat it.
The reason this may be, is because people are idiots. I've had to make a few tech support calls before, and once I tell them I already punched in my IP address in the browser and my routers firewall page says the service is down, they start treating me a bit better. It's because people will call to tell their internet is down, and its because at one point they turned the router off, or unplugged it, or something stupid. It's not always a mean CSR, but sometimes just people that don't know what they are doing.
A real experience I had helping one of my friends: Me: "Alright, first open up your web browser." Him: "...web browser?"
The main reason is simple. Apple only works with Apple products. Of course coders have made exceptions, but legally, most of Apple's hardware will ONLY work with other Apple items. Apple makes the computers, and you're stuck with it. You can't do what you do with Microsoft, and buy your motherboard from here, your video card here, your audio card there, etc. It's Apples unilateralism towards its own products that limit's its potential (or its danger, depending on your point of view.)
In the future...
"I'm sorry, I don't know why I hit him, I was only driving with my feet while doing my hair, makeup, and taxes! He should NOT have been talking on that phone! He would have seen me coming! HE was the lawbreaker!"
A lot of times talking about music makes it really easy to break the ice. In the instance of two people liking the same groups or style, they can immediately break into a discussion about favorite work or band, latest albums, where they get their music, etc. These conversations can branch onto others, but finding a stable common ground is important.
It totally flopped the first time. Honestly, I think that the main reason that the DS is the top is because it is a system that PLAYS GAMES. That's it. You know, I barely EVER see people playing a game on PSP. It's not popular as a portable game system, but a portable computer. Trying to jam a phone, mp3 player, and game machine into one will fail miserably. Its the same reason I'd rather have a phone and an iPod versus a phone that plays music, I'd rather have one machine that does excellent at a single function.
So... your stepdaughter was badtalking you to her friends? Right, like you NEVER did that to your parents. I think that rather than slapping all the rights away, you should be addressing with your daughter what she felt upset about or why she was bad talking you, and a way you could improve your relationship. Taking away one privelage after another isn't gonna do a thing pal.
Slashdot Mirror
> "They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged... They studied the problem in all its dimensions, through multiple hearings."
That was in 1999... thirteen years ago. Things have changed a ton since then, both in advents of the media industries and in terms of how media is distributed online.
> "When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is? Wikipedia, Google and others manufactured controversy by unfairly equating SOPA with censorship. They also argued misleadingly that the bills would have required Web sites to “monitor” what their users upload, conveniently ignoring provisions like the “No Duty to Monitor” section."
The 1:1 equation of piracy to theft is enough of a debate. If we want to get technical, no "stolen goods" are being fenced online. There is not a 1:1 loss from a pirated item online. Second, there are "no need to monitor" in the bills. However, if you don't take down an offending piece of material, your entire site could be at risk to be taken down by the provisions in the bills - not exactly giving companies incentive to not monitor.
> "When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations."
Both Wikipedia and Google actually released detailed press statements expressing the dire concerns of the bills in order to justify their campaigning against it. WikiMedia even explained that Wikipedia is remaining a neutral site - but the company that owns it is just fine in presenting it's on viewpoints. A news organization should remain neutral - an owning company is free to express views and fund politicians however it wants.
> "That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.”"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> "The violation of neutrality is a patent hypocrisy: these companies have long argued that Internet service providers (telecommunications and cable companies) had to be regulated under the doctrine of “net neutrality”..."
No... no, that's not really what's going on. He's attempting to make a point that could be equated to saying that the First Amendment "regulates" speech.
> "Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans?"
Um... I... what? This doesn't make any sense.
> "Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree."
OUCH MY BRAIN. Seriously. Like, really? Are you kidding me? So we're... trying to say that by stopping organizations and laws who's entire goal will result in mass censorship... we're the ones offending free speech? MY LOGIC IS BLEEDING.
> "Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives."
Steam, Origin, NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu, many proposed music alternatives, there have been plenty of alternatives proposed by lots of companies and private organizations. And they've all been rejected because the big media companies don't want to give up the stranglehold of distribution they have.
> "We all share the goal of a safe and legal Internet."
"Safe and legal" doesn't exactly sound like "free and open" to me. Kind of ominous, really. Man, the more I think about "safe and legal" the more that really just sounds incredibly awkward and dark.
...I suppose on what is really being paid for. Are you paying for someone to spin an article in your favor, or are you simply paying to make sure that the article is well done, well formatted, and grammatically correct. I see no objections to the latter, honestly.
I think the issue that's here in this case is not that she is guilty or innocent, but what the RIAA is doing to win the case (attempted denial of a future lawyer, etc), and how much they want to take from her. Even though she is likely guilty, what she is guilty of is still insanely disproportional to what the RIAA is trying to get from her in exchange. That's my opinion, at least.
The trouble is that it's a cyclical thing. People start downloading things for free. Companies increase their DRM/Copyright policies, which interfere with people enjoying the product, which leads to more people downloading to avoid increasingly draconian policies, which makes the companies increase their policies even more to combat the growing threat... The issue isn't that one is right or that one is wrong. It's that they naturally oppose each other, two groups of extremists, which leave others sitting in the middle.
Just a note. Legal=/=Right Illegal=/=Wrong It was illegal to revolt against Britain in the late 1700s, or to sit on a bus in the front seat in the 1950s if you were black, or to vote if you were a woman until the 1920s. Laws have a terrible history of being wrong.
Am I the only one that considers the military benefits of having a barren, uninhabited, never-populated, no-worries land? I mean, think of the testing applications that could be done where we never have to worry about the effects on other people?
This bill does have the best of intentions behind it. Unfortunately, when put into practice, it would be viciously abused at one point or another. Again, the problem comes of internet anonymity, as mentioned. The problem then becomes, for small artists, personal artists, or writers or photographers, who frequent websites such as, say, deviantART, that post many many works, even a token fee stacks. A $5 fee might not seem like much, but if you have 100 works... well, that speaks for itself. Think of the little guys, congress. C'mon, stop being fxcktards for ten seconds and think of us.
A brief point... both M (game) and R (movie) ratings prevent viewing or purchasing by those under 17 years old... the "adult" threshold of things is 18. My question is this... what difference does that year make? I think things would be much simpler, make an OT (Older Teen) rating... perhaps 15-16 year olds for mid-level content, and then just push M to 18 years old. With that one year of being a minor in the eyes of the government eliminated, you'd be able to add in a bit more discussion. Also, I haven't read the comments, but I'm sure it's come up, he's not asking to be allowed to show tons of hardcore sex, he means the issue is that you can't even DISCUSS the issues half the time. I remember the origi nal release of FFVII... :) rated T for Animated blood and alchohol reference. Oh, there was also gratuitous cursing (only the F word was censored), lots of romantic interaction and tension between characters, and even a (mainly goofy, and not taken seriously) option for who Cloud went on a date with at the Golden Saucer based on character interactions... Tifa, Aeris, or BARRET.
Not marked for that though.
No, but book reviews help you decide if you want to spend the time/effort reading the book. So, blogs can help pique interest in a story that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.
Does anyone have a link to an article about this movement that ISN'T slanted so far it's almost vertical? I'm interested in reading into the details, but don't want to be shoved with either OMG US R DOOMED or trying to sugarcoat it.
there was a movement to sponsor a car with a linux logo in the indy 500.
the car crashed (literally).
The reason this may be, is because people are idiots. I've had to make a few tech support calls before, and once I tell them I already punched in my IP address in the browser and my routers firewall page says the service is down, they start treating me a bit better. It's because people will call to tell their internet is down, and its because at one point they turned the router off, or unplugged it, or something stupid. It's not always a mean CSR, but sometimes just people that don't know what they are doing.
A real experience I had helping one of my friends:
Me: "Alright, first open up your web browser."
Him: "...web browser?"
The main reason is simple. Apple only works with Apple products. Of course coders have made exceptions, but legally, most of Apple's hardware will ONLY work with other Apple items. Apple makes the computers, and you're stuck with it. You can't do what you do with Microsoft, and buy your motherboard from here, your video card here, your audio card there, etc. It's Apples unilateralism towards its own products that limit's its potential (or its danger, depending on your point of view.)
In the future... "I'm sorry, I don't know why I hit him, I was only driving with my feet while doing my hair, makeup, and taxes! He should NOT have been talking on that phone! He would have seen me coming! HE was the lawbreaker!"
A lot of times talking about music makes it really easy to break the ice. In the instance of two people liking the same groups or style, they can immediately break into a discussion about favorite work or band, latest albums, where they get their music, etc. These conversations can branch onto others, but finding a stable common ground is important.
It totally flopped the first time. Honestly, I think that the main reason that the DS is the top is because it is a system that PLAYS GAMES. That's it. You know, I barely EVER see people playing a game on PSP. It's not popular as a portable game system, but a portable computer. Trying to jam a phone, mp3 player, and game machine into one will fail miserably. Its the same reason I'd rather have a phone and an iPod versus a phone that plays music, I'd rather have one machine that does excellent at a single function.
So... your stepdaughter was badtalking you to her friends? Right, like you NEVER did that to your parents. I think that rather than slapping all the rights away, you should be addressing with your daughter what she felt upset about or why she was bad talking you, and a way you could improve your relationship. Taking away one privelage after another isn't gonna do a thing pal.