why do they get to profiteer off of the misery of their ancestors? this behaviour would seem to violate the traditions they claim to uphold.
i was not born when the genocide occurred, non of them were either. i do not owe them anything. if you believe that those oppressed in the past should be compensated now, then i want my fucking check from the Italian government for all the crap the romans did to the English, Irish and Scottish (the bulk of my ancestors, on two convenient islands). that is no less ridiculous. don't' like it? complain to Hadrian. unfortunately you can't, he's dead, and so are all the people who actually suffered and might deserve compensations.
this falls under "two wrongs don't make a right". if anything should happen the reservations should be irrigated such that they can support the true traditional lifestyle, or the reservations should move to land that can support it. on the condition they give up anything the tribes didn't have before the genocide, (cars, radios, western medicine).
if they really want to go back to that lifestyle then let them. otherwise, quit yer bitchin'.
in short: no, they have not had a rough 500 years. none of them have had anything more than a rough 80 or 90 years at the most and many of them have had quite a cush 10-20 years due to casinos. pick a tribe, ask someone who's even 1/16th a member of that tribe by blood and ask how big the check they receive is.
the only living native Americans (native North Americans?) deserving of even sympathy are those who would truly like to live traditionally, off the land, in animal hide tents and clothing, but cannot because the land set aside for them in the 1800's that they are still on simply isn't suitable for it.
but i do agree with you on one thing: asking for compensation for rf transmissions is just insane.
i don't mean to be a dick, but i'm tired and cranky.
python is named for a sketch comedy troupe. i'll let you guess which one.
aren't you glad? now you can use the language!
and today i am a true slashdotter, for i have taken time out of my busy (ha!) day to correct some pointless detail in another's post, hopefully showing off my knowledge and intelligence. yes, i am one of you now.
no. it's like saying that if you leave your diary out in the open, protected only by a single strip of clear adhesive tape, then it's not a crime to open it and read the contents of your diary.
we have similar laws, which is why when people bring printouts from the website to the store they get the better price. best buy is counting on people just eating the price difference and now they've added a disclaimer to the website (so i've read here today) that the prices on the website aren't available in the stores.
everything that, to you, is 'good enough' was 'needlessly improved' to someone else some time ago. if you don't want Firefox to change, then go save a copy of it's installer now and put it someplace secure.
and, not to be mean (I'm quite sleep deprived at this point), if you want to welcome change on your own terms, write your own browser.
you'll never find a car that's absolutely perfect if you're very specific about every detail you want and also rely on others to make the car for you.
from the sound of things tho, i doubt you will be forced to manage your bookmarks differently with the upcoming system, but the option will be there.
not sure that'd be irony. seems like it would be vindication instead. what would be ironic (sort of) is for thompson to be murdered by someone who never used a computer ever.
now, let us pray...that it doesnt happen to him of course (wink).
the appropriate response is to point out that a system is already in place and that it is and always has been the retailers responsibility to enforce these restrictions.
if a 15 year old got into see an R rated movie without supervision, who's fault is it? Universals or the theaters?
it's a no brainer and if thompson does sue MS will destroy him. there are plenty of other things MS does wrong but they are (by chance, in my opinion) in the right on this topic. simply: it's not their job.
of course this goes out the window if it can be shown that MS has an explicit agreement with retailers to allow minors to purchase this game.
they can also use those systems to play Irish folk songs for 3 days in February. it happened once at a Ralph's in northern California, i was so happy to hear the Pogues at work.
turned out someone hit the wrong button somewhere on some device and didn't catch it for 72 hours.
if you're not doing anything wrong, why do they need to watch you constantly?
a criminal code of law is there to settle issues when something is wrong. if two grown men get in a fight and are both willing participants, is that battery? it is illegal in many jurisdictions, but they are both consenting adults, know the risks involved and well, probably just wont call the authorities on each other, no ones arrested an illegal act goes unnoticed and everything is A-OK.
now if everyone was monitored 24/7 both men get arrested for this. the lose the liberty to choose to fight each other consensually. the definition of what makes one a criminal slips just a little, and now since they can monitor everyone they can now arrest all the "new" criminals, and they can do this each time the definition slips a little more.
for constant monitoring of *all* activities of all citizens to contribute to a free and productive society there would have to be explicit lists of all the things that are OK to do, but if the explicit list is of what's OK that implies that this is the shorter list and that is not a good thing.
imagine a society where everyone is afraid to go and do anything besides go to work and come back home, everyone is a neat little cog in the great economic machine and everything runs smoothly. except that a society is not only its economy and we as citizens do not exist to support our economy. instead the economy exists so we can afford to do the things that we want to do in our lives, even if it's not on a pre-approved list.
the rights of the people should be more important than the rights of the companies or the power of the government.
if you don't open the message you aren't charged for it. my question is how do i prevent my phone from telling the network that it opened a text message?
the only reason for the inequity between intellectual and real property is that real property cannot be copied and intellectual property can never be stolen.
this is a very real and fundamental difference and the man making the argument in the article needs to be boycotted by everybody forever. if you have intellectual property and want to have control over it forever then never ever release it publicly. if you want the public to experience it then you must give up control of it in some way at some point.
copyright law exists to give incentive to artists to create socially and culturally significant works. perpetual copyright gives no such incentive, instead it provides incentive to create works intended to do nothing but generate profit.
i did not say it was ok. i should have stated that it is not ok explicitly. but it is not theft, this is not an arguable point, there is no room for interpretation: it-is-not-theft. it's still not ok, it's not right and it is not legal, but it is not theft and it is not criminal, it is a civil issue and that is what it deserves to be.
people like you who buy into and reinforce this propaganda that copyright violation is equal to and is by definition theft are a detriment to this society and it's legal system. people like you would argue that if my nephew comes over and installs an unauthorized copy of software on my computer because i let him play on it and later i find it and remove it in the normal fashion, and even later than that the deleted bits that are this program are recovered from my hard drive that i now can be imprisoned. this is where your argument leads. after all, how can i prove that i was not the one who installed it myself?
people should have more rights than companies. people NEED to have more rights than companies, society can't survive otherwise. without this relationship we become a corporate police state and this is the argument being used to take rights away from the people and this is the argument being used now by people to hand give up our rights willingly.
now, i personally go *buy* things from artists and producers that i want and like. i support the people i want to keep around making new things, i don't think its right for people to just take what they can for free and not show financial support for the things they think are valuable, but still, it is not theft. still wrong but not theft.
it is bad that industries are hurting because of this problem, i agree. well it is bad that the pc game industry is hurting. but it is more important that individuals keep their rights, yes even if it does enable some to make unauthorized copies of works that are produced. the rights of the company are less important than the rights of an individual who *might,* maybe, someday, perhaps make an unauthorized copy.
i want to see an america again where the culture and art is produced by people who love producing it, musicians who love music, and actors and directors who make $3,000 movies for the love of making them, and when it becomes an issue of copyrights of individuals vs. the rights of other individuals to have the ability to make copies. when it becomes an issue of and individual having control over the work that he put his soul into and not an issue of a multi thousand employee organization having control over the works made by a myriad of other people for the soul purpose of turning a profit, and we still have problems with unauthorized copying, yes when the problem is that unauthorized copying is deterring individuals from making things they love to make, only then is it a real problem.
no movie company has the right to earn hundreds of millions of dollars on a single movie, no band has the right to become millionaires off of their first album (while the producers will amass billions over several bands). these were short lived privileges that are fading fast and with good reason. and no company deserves to purchase legislation to protect these privileges.
by allowing the current copyright debacle we now have unfolding with the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and the rest of the cast, we are proclaiming proudly to the world that we are measuring ourselves as a country solely by our economy, and a nation of people thusly measured is a nation that measures up short. ask a european about their opinion about americas stance on copyrights and you will have my vindication. copyrights were a privilege granted to individuals who took time out of their busy schedules to produce works that benefit others and allow them at least a shot at making a living off of these works, and this privilege is being abused by large corporations and our society is suffering dearly for it.
i feel for the gaming industry but their troubles are but a trifle. simply put, there are bigger issues at hand.
i'm done with this thread. __
"i love to bang my head against the wall, it feels so good when i stop"
no it's not window dressing. the point is that unauthorized copying is not a violation of the US criminal code, it's a violation of civil law and is therefore not a crime. it is not theft because theft is very well defined and violating copyrights does NOT FIT THIS DEFINITION. there is no more to this argument than this point calling it theft is inflammatory and is slander (libel if in print). it is not a crime and it is not something that deserves to be a crime. it is an offense reserved only for civil court.
if i make an unauthorized copy of someones cd then i have not taken anything from them by not purchasing it because they did not have the revenue from that cd to begin with and i am only depriving them of that revenue if and only if it is guaranteed that i would have spent money on it otherwise.
your saying that it's theft all the same is analogous to claiming that stealing someones life savings is on par with murdering them because now you've taken the money that would have provided for them for the rest of their years when in fact it is in no way reasonable to say murder and theft are on an equal moral level.
copyright infringement is not on the same moral level as actual theft. after a theft one has less than they had before the theft, after a copyright infringement, the infringed upon has the same as they had before, they just do not have more.
also: nobody has a right to make money off of copyrighted works. it's perfectly reasonable for some artists to go bankrupt after releasing works that nobody buys. the argument is that, if nobody meets the artists requirements for obtaining a copy of the work (i.e. buying it, tho some only care that you like it and tell others about it) then that exact same number of people (nobody) should be in possession of a copy.
quite frankly i find it fucking infuriating that morons like you can't seem to grasp these concepts. it can be (and has been) fairly easily shown that you don't have a firm grasp on the details of the issue. music pirates aren't depriving artists of anything. go and read a contract that new bands are required to sign to get a deal with a major label.
it's these companies that are stealing from the artists (not infringing upon them but actual goddamn fucking theft). these bands are asked to have their first album written and recorded before signing often and when they do sign they lose all of their copyrights to the label due to the contracts and since record companies have lobbied to have such works classified as 'works for hire', even though they were not hired to produce said works, they were hired because they had *already* produced them.
the RIAA is *not* an association of artists, it is a consortium of large companies that will do anything to get as much money as possible. what the members of this group does to the actual artists is as reprehensible as theft even if it is legal. (note the careful wording, have someone explain it to you if necessary).
damn i hate ignorant people.
yes i am defending pirates, and no i personally do not download anything.
one last point. IT'S NOT ACTUAL PIRACY FOR PETE'S SAKE (i've used the f word enough for on week) it's infringement or unauthorized copying, use of words like 'piracy' and 'theft' confuse the issue and fools like you fall for it. i've yet to hear a band that cares if people copy their music without paying for it that has any decent music at all. any artist of any actual talent can make a living regardless of whether or not people copy their works.
Slashdot Mirror
i was born here, i have as much claim as any other individual who was born here, Indian or otherwise.
after that they'll fasttrack it to 6 days, graduation is on the 7th.
where will i find gilmour girls fanfic porn now?
why do they get to profiteer off of the misery of their ancestors? this behaviour would seem to violate the traditions they claim to uphold.
i was not born when the genocide occurred, non of them were either. i do not owe them anything. if you believe that those oppressed in the past should be compensated now, then i want my fucking check from the Italian government for all the crap the romans did to the English, Irish and Scottish (the bulk of my ancestors, on two convenient islands). that is no less ridiculous. don't' like it? complain to Hadrian. unfortunately you can't, he's dead, and so are all the people who actually suffered and might deserve compensations.
this falls under "two wrongs don't make a right". if anything should happen the reservations should be irrigated such that they can support the true traditional lifestyle, or the reservations should move to land that can support it. on the condition they give up anything the tribes didn't have before the genocide, (cars, radios, western medicine).
if they really want to go back to that lifestyle then let them. otherwise, quit yer bitchin'.
in short: no, they have not had a rough 500 years. none of them have had anything more than a rough 80 or 90 years at the most and many of them have had quite a cush 10-20 years due to casinos. pick a tribe, ask someone who's even 1/16th a member of that tribe by blood and ask how big the check they receive is.
the only living native Americans (native North Americans?) deserving of even sympathy are those who would truly like to live traditionally, off the land, in animal hide tents and clothing, but cannot because the land set aside for them in the 1800's that they are still on simply isn't suitable for it.
but i do agree with you on one thing: asking for compensation for rf transmissions is just insane.
i don't mean to be a dick, but i'm tired and cranky.
tried to be funny, failed at it. my indoctrination continues.
linked articles?
python is named for a sketch comedy troupe. i'll let you guess which one.
aren't you glad? now you can use the language!
and today i am a true slashdotter, for i have taken time out of my busy (ha!) day to correct some pointless detail in another's post, hopefully showing off my knowledge and intelligence. yes, i am one of you now.
(what can i say, it's been a slow day)
but what if their head explodes for dark forbodings too, before you can rip it off?
i agree with you, but the people buying hookers and blow for our legislators don't.
no. it's like saying that if you leave your diary out in the open, protected only by a single strip of clear adhesive tape, then it's not a crime to open it and read the contents of your diary.
we have similar laws, which is why when people bring printouts from the website to the store they get the better price. best buy is counting on people just eating the price difference and now they've added a disclaimer to the website (so i've read here today) that the prices on the website aren't available in the stores.
everything that, to you, is 'good enough' was 'needlessly improved' to someone else some time ago. if you don't want Firefox to change, then go save a copy of it's installer now and put it someplace secure.
and, not to be mean (I'm quite sleep deprived at this point), if you want to welcome change on your own terms, write your own browser.
you'll never find a car that's absolutely perfect if you're very specific about every detail you want and also rely on others to make the car for you.
from the sound of things tho, i doubt you will be forced to manage your bookmarks differently with the upcoming system, but the option will be there.
turnabout is fair play?
in most segments of society, if one starts dishing out unprovoked abuse, it's considered fair to dish it right back.
this of course is not a legal justification.
also two wrongs don't make a right, however patents are not a moral issue.
not sure that'd be irony. seems like it would be vindication instead. what would be ironic (sort of) is for thompson to be murdered by someone who never used a computer ever.
now, let us pray...that it doesnt happen to him of course (wink).
the appropriate response is to point out that a system is already in place and that it is and always has been the retailers responsibility to enforce these restrictions.
if a 15 year old got into see an R rated movie without supervision, who's fault is it? Universals or the theaters?
it's a no brainer and if thompson does sue MS will destroy him. there are plenty of other things MS does wrong but they are (by chance, in my opinion) in the right on this topic. simply: it's not their job.
of course this goes out the window if it can be shown that MS has an explicit agreement with retailers to allow minors to purchase this game.
i want them to hold the court proceedings in the hadron collider, maybe they'll make a black hole in there that will swallow both parties whole.
they can also use those systems to play Irish folk songs for 3 days in February. it happened once at a Ralph's in northern California, i was so happy to hear the Pogues at work.
turned out someone hit the wrong button somewhere on some device and didn't catch it for 72 hours.
but if we rewrite history...wont it stop teaching us that?
if you're not doing anything wrong, why do they need to watch you constantly?
a criminal code of law is there to settle issues when something is wrong. if two grown men get in a fight and are both willing participants, is that battery? it is illegal in many jurisdictions, but they are both consenting adults, know the risks involved and well, probably just wont call the authorities on each other, no ones arrested an illegal act goes unnoticed and everything is A-OK.
now if everyone was monitored 24/7 both men get arrested for this. the lose the liberty to choose to fight each other consensually. the definition of what makes one a criminal slips just a little, and now since they can monitor everyone they can now arrest all the "new" criminals, and they can do this each time the definition slips a little more.
for constant monitoring of *all* activities of all citizens to contribute to a free and productive society there would have to be explicit lists of all the things that are OK to do, but if the explicit list is of what's OK that implies that this is the shorter list and that is not a good thing.
imagine a society where everyone is afraid to go and do anything besides go to work and come back home, everyone is a neat little cog in the great economic machine and everything runs smoothly. except that a society is not only its economy and we as citizens do not exist to support our economy. instead the economy exists so we can afford to do the things that we want to do in our lives, even if it's not on a pre-approved list.
the rights of the people should be more important than the rights of the companies or the power of the government.
stereo types do not cause intolerance, but taking them seriously does.
there are offices with no windows? *jumps for joy* oh, you mean physical windows. *hangs head, puts off updating resume*
if you don't open the message you aren't charged for it. my question is how do i prevent my phone from telling the network that it opened a text message?
the only reason for the inequity between intellectual and real property is that real property cannot be copied and intellectual property can never be stolen.
this is a very real and fundamental difference and the man making the argument in the article needs to be boycotted by everybody forever. if you have intellectual property and want to have control over it forever then never ever release it publicly. if you want the public to experience it then you must give up control of it in some way at some point.
copyright law exists to give incentive to artists to create socially and culturally significant works. perpetual copyright gives no such incentive, instead it provides incentive to create works intended to do nothing but generate profit.
there is no good case for perpetual copyright.
i did not say it was ok. i should have stated that it is not ok explicitly. but it is not theft, this is not an arguable point, there is no room for interpretation: it-is-not-theft. it's still not ok, it's not right and it is not legal, but it is not theft and it is not criminal, it is a civil issue and that is what it deserves to be.
people like you who buy into and reinforce this propaganda that copyright violation is equal to and is by definition theft are a detriment to this society and it's legal system. people like you would argue that if my nephew comes over and installs an unauthorized copy of software on my computer because i let him play on it and later i find it and remove it in the normal fashion, and even later than that the deleted bits that are this program are recovered from my hard drive that i now can be imprisoned. this is where your argument leads. after all, how can i prove that i was not the one who installed it myself?
people should have more rights than companies. people NEED to have more rights than companies, society can't survive otherwise. without this relationship we become a corporate police state and this is the argument being used to take rights away from the people and this is the argument being used now by people to hand give up our rights willingly.
now, i personally go *buy* things from artists and producers that i want and like. i support the people i want to keep around making new things, i don't think its right for people to just take what they can for free and not show financial support for the things they think are valuable, but still, it is not theft. still wrong but not theft.
it is bad that industries are hurting because of this problem, i agree. well it is bad that the pc game industry is hurting. but it is more important that individuals keep their rights, yes even if it does enable some to make unauthorized copies of works that are produced. the rights of the company are less important than the rights of an individual who *might,* maybe, someday, perhaps make an unauthorized copy.
i want to see an america again where the culture and art is produced by people who love producing it, musicians who love music, and actors and directors who make $3,000 movies for the love of making them, and when it becomes an issue of copyrights of individuals vs. the rights of other individuals to have the ability to make copies. when it becomes an issue of and individual having control over the work that he put his soul into and not an issue of a multi thousand employee organization having control over the works made by a myriad of other people for the soul purpose of turning a profit, and we still have problems with unauthorized copying, yes when the problem is that unauthorized copying is deterring individuals from making things they love to make, only then is it a real problem.
no movie company has the right to earn hundreds of millions of dollars on a single movie, no band has the right to become millionaires off of their first album (while the producers will amass billions over several bands). these were short lived privileges that are fading fast and with good reason. and no company deserves to purchase legislation to protect these privileges.
by allowing the current copyright debacle we now have unfolding with the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and the rest of the cast, we are proclaiming proudly to the world that we are measuring ourselves as a country solely by our economy, and a nation of people thusly measured is a nation that measures up short. ask a european about their opinion about americas stance on copyrights and you will have my vindication. copyrights were a privilege granted to individuals who took time out of their busy schedules to produce works that benefit others and allow them at least a shot at making a living off of these works, and this privilege is being abused by large corporations and our society is suffering dearly for it.
i feel for the gaming industry but their troubles are but a trifle. simply put, there are bigger issues at hand.
i'm done with this thread.
__
"i love to bang my head against the wall, it feels so good when i stop"
no it's not window dressing. the point is that unauthorized copying is not a violation of the US criminal code, it's a violation of civil law and is therefore not a crime. it is not theft because theft is very well defined and violating copyrights does NOT FIT THIS DEFINITION. there is no more to this argument than this point calling it theft is inflammatory and is slander (libel if in print). it is not a crime and it is not something that deserves to be a crime. it is an offense reserved only for civil court.
if i make an unauthorized copy of someones cd then i have not taken anything from them by not purchasing it because they did not have the revenue from that cd to begin with and i am only depriving them of that revenue if and only if it is guaranteed that i would have spent money on it otherwise.
your saying that it's theft all the same is analogous to claiming that stealing someones life savings is on par with murdering them because now you've taken the money that would have provided for them for the rest of their years when in fact it is in no way reasonable to say murder and theft are on an equal moral level.
copyright infringement is not on the same moral level as actual theft. after a theft one has less than they had before the theft, after a copyright infringement, the infringed upon has the same as they had before, they just do not have more.
also: nobody has a right to make money off of copyrighted works. it's perfectly reasonable for some artists to go bankrupt after releasing works that nobody buys. the argument is that, if nobody meets the artists requirements for obtaining a copy of the work (i.e. buying it, tho some only care that you like it and tell others about it) then that exact same number of people (nobody) should be in possession of a copy.
quite frankly i find it fucking infuriating that morons like you can't seem to grasp these concepts. it can be (and has been) fairly easily shown that you don't have a firm grasp on the details of the issue. music pirates aren't depriving artists of anything. go and read a contract that new bands are required to sign to get a deal with a major label.
it's these companies that are stealing from the artists (not infringing upon them but actual goddamn fucking theft). these bands are asked to have their first album written and recorded before signing often and when they do sign they lose all of their copyrights to the label due to the contracts and since record companies have lobbied to have such works classified as 'works for hire', even though they were not hired to produce said works, they were hired because they had *already* produced them.
the RIAA is *not* an association of artists, it is a consortium of large companies that will do anything to get as much money as possible. what the members of this group does to the actual artists is as reprehensible as theft even if it is legal. (note the careful wording, have someone explain it to you if necessary).
damn i hate ignorant people.
yes i am defending pirates, and no i personally do not download anything.
one last point. IT'S NOT ACTUAL PIRACY FOR PETE'S SAKE (i've used the f word enough for on week) it's infringement or unauthorized copying, use of words like 'piracy' and 'theft' confuse the issue and fools like you fall for it. i've yet to hear a band that cares if people copy their music without paying for it that has any decent music at all. any artist of any actual talent can make a living regardless of whether or not people copy their works.