Hey, that's cool. If he wants to remix a book in the public domain, that's fine- he's well within his rights to do so. Passing it off as the original Origin of Species? Well, that's pretty-freakin'-dubious, especially considering the controversy around this, but I guess he's well within his rights to do that as well. A kind of 'Origin of Species 2.0' with full Christian-theology compatibility, I suppose you could say.
But, of course, evolutionists are free to do the same to the Bible. Let's see how it might look...
1:3 And God said, Let the Universe expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continue to expand to this day. 1:4 And God saw the bang, that it was good: and God divided the photons from the.. lack of photons. Not his most crowning achievement, but he thought it profound. 1:5 And God called the light, typically bought upon by a rotation of a planet relative to its axis, Day, and the darkness he called Night. Well- not really. The naming of the day and night cycle will come much later, with the evolution of man and man's languages, but at least he thought of the concept at this point and possibly gave it it a name in his own language. Plus, being a cosmic being who didn't live on any planet the concept of night and day really had no meaning for him, and he hadn't even created any planets at this point and oh I've gone crosseyed. Let's move on.... 1:8 And God called the firmament Deep Space, wherein he created thousands and millions of other similar solar systems and planets. Inhabited? Perhaps, but that is a secret God will keep until the great revealing (or not. Psyche!).... 1:10 And God called one particular lump of soil, carbon and hydrogen/oxygen liquid Earth; and on it he planted the seeds of primordial life, which would one day evolve into man: and God saw that it was good. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass eventually, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, with each generation changing very slightly to adapt to its surroundings, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind (slightly changing with each generation, adapting and improving), and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.... 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creat- wait, no. This came first. Before the grass- at least, according to the most recent scientific theory. So yeah. Disregard what I said earlier, the water stuff came first. 1:21 And God eventually created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and much later every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and adapt, and fill the waters in- wait, no. Don't go back into the water on second thought, that's going backwards again.... 1:24 And God said, Let the earth eventually bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 1:25 And God eventually made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:26 And God said, Let us eventually make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that have after billions of years creepeth upon the earth. 1:27 So God created man in his own imag- wait. This isn't really possible- humans can't survive in the unprotected void of space... at best it would be a superficial appearance of being 'Go
Replying to my own post here, but also remember that this is exactly what ReactOS did when there was a similar allegation by Microsoft- and were largely applauded for it. Again, it's the sane, rational thing to do and in my eyes doesn't admit any guilt whatsoever. That doesn't mean a GPL violation isn't there, mind, but it means that if there is one this is exactly how it should be handled.
Now now, calm down a moment. Imagine what would happen if they *didn't* pull the code- there would be a veritable shitstorm in the Free Software community. This is the smart, rational thing to do.
On a side note, this really acknowledges the power of the GPL- if even a single report says that there is a GPL violation and this causes Microsoft (its 'arch nemesis) to pull a tool for their newly launched apple-of-their-eye.
Here's to hoping Mandriva 2010 undoes some of the damage caused to the Linux image by the Ubuntu Karmic release SNAFU.
Everyone keeps saying that, but... for my home I upgraded a dozen total Ubuntu installs including desktop machines, laptops, virtual machines, file and database servers, MythBuntu frontends and backends... and encountered absolutely no issues.:/ The first I heard of any upgrade problems at all was on Slashdot.
Wormhole based travel and the possibility of extra-dimensional mishaps? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take my billion-year panspermia, thank you.
Limited stop options and the serious risk of drowning? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a Ultracapacitor Bus which recharges at each stop, thank you.
I have no problem with overselling. It's necessary and efficient. I have problems with [b]dramatic[/b] overselling, particularly when coupled with a 'we can disconnect you for no reason' clause. Which means ISPs can sell a substancially defective product to people who'll significantly undersell it, while cutting off anyone who uses even close to their allotment.
Reductio ad car analogy, would you buy a car which shut down after being driven 40miles in a day, despite being told that the car had a 400 mile range? (it does, but only 40 miles per day... what- you want to drive MOOOORE? EXCESSIVE USAGE, BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, YOUR CAR SHUTS DOWN!)
Money is power; simple as that. If you have money, you can get people to do things- it's power. There are other forms of power but money's the most common (and, in many but not all cases, the most powerful).
Restrictions on how you can spend your money devales that money. $1,000 is a nice sum of money for (almost) anyone to receive, but if it can only be spent on peanuts only you can eat? Can you eat a grand's worth of peanuts? What if you're allergic? In this case the money is basically worthless, because it has no power.
Almost all ISPs want the power to restrict the usage of their clientbase. In some cases this is benign- stopping spammers from throwing out millions of spam e-mails a day, for example. In other cases, not so (blocking/disconnecting high usage users then dramatically overselling their network). But want of power isn't a problem; everyone wants power. Everyone. Every individual, every corporation... everyone. So that's okay.
The reason why they are rejecting the money is because it has external factors. It has a stigma of being 'government bailout money'. It can only be used for certain things, and it has strings (a'la net neutrality). The ISPs have evaluated their money, decided that the restrictions limit its power too greatly and that it would be a net power loss for them.
The best way to dispose of a hard drive is to open it up to get the platters, blast them with a blowtorch until they become brittle, smash them to tiny bits/powder with a hammer then scatter the tiny bits into the ocean.
The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.
If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?
Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed? Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?
Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.
Everything I've seen suggests that it is viewed like anything else - a potential tool that our customers may or may not benefit from, if used correctly.
This is how all software should be, in my opinion. Creating a zealous movement around it (be that Apple, Linux or Microsoft) does nobody any good. Pieces of software are tools; sometimes you just want a hammer to run games (Windows), sometimes you want a saw to host a web server (Linux), sometimes you want a screwdriver to boost your 'hip' score (Apple).
Use the correct tool and your life will forever be easier. The Free Software Movement is very important and cool, but ultimately when you find a nail you better have a hammer.
Well, the "With us or against us" binary logic that served Bush throughout his presidency didn't end up doing him much good at the end. Hopefully this kind of rot will go the same way- useful as a simplification early on, but ultimately revealed as flawed and unproductive.
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
No, I think you're exaggerating pretty substantially (I'm sure other replies will correlate this). Almost everyone outside of the "IP is immoral, man, dude, bro... you can't OWN an IDEA, man!" crowd accept that torrenting is, basically, wrong. It's just the degree of 'wrongness' that's at question, along with how much people should be punished for doing it.
I believe jaywalking is wrong. I jaywalk frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught jaywalking, I would just shrug and pay the $50 fine or whatever, because I acknowledge what I did was wrong and accept that I should be lightly punished for it.
I believe torrenting stuff is wrong too. I bittorrent frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught bittorrenting, I would either pay the exorbitant settlement ($3,100 or so) OR (far more likely) refuse and get dragged through court, paying many times this amount in court fees, legal fees, lost wages etc.
This is the big difference. That copyright infringement is considered by most people to be a minor offense, much akin to jaywalking. The problem is that the MPAA/RIAA/etc believe copyright infringement to be in some cases worse than murder- so I would counter your argument that "people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response" by saying that the RIAA/MPAA do also believe that utterly destroying someone's life/life savings (and if they had their way serious jail time and felony status) is an appropriate response to downloading a CD. But instead of just talking about it, they *actually go out and do it*.
Let's say I'm really really offended at your post. So offended that I decide to plant a terabyte drive full of child porn in your house, then break into your house and "uncover" it. I admit to everything except planting the drive ("The guy wanted to sell me a drive full of kiddy porn, so I broke in to see if it was real so I could take my information to the police"). I face a fine/misdemeanor for burglary (or nothing and get lauded as a hero), you face at best a lengthy court battle along with the social stigma of being accused of being a pedophile, and at worst registration on the sex offenders list and possibly decades in prison.
And let's not get into what might happen to multi-billion dollar corporations who can pay any "gathered evidence illegally fine" without any trouble (even if it's millions). Do you really want a situation where any big company could send you to prison on a whim?
First they laugh at you. (They certainly did at that- Linux on a *tiny computer?* It'll never fly... hahaha!)... then you ignore you. (The nettop market was certainly ignored by Microsoft for enough time to qualify.)... then they fight you. (Current stage...)... then you win. (Well, time will tell...)
My problem (and the problem many others have) is not that I support The Pirate Bay, but that the judge is horrifically biased. If you were on trial for possession of pot, and the judge was a member of a large number of "hard on drugs" think tanks, would you expect a fair trial?
The ten commandments are also a little outdated. Thou shalt not covert another man's wife? Really? So I can't fap to some other guy's chick if she's married? Okay, fair call. But women can covert all the men they want? That's not exactly fair. What about gay couples? Coverting is completely okay? Lesbians, too? Interesting...
If the ten commandments and by extension the bible were, indeed, a living document a LOT more changes would come before the copywrite infringment stuff. Sorry.
Millions of people break the law every day; this particular issue of law, specifically. Copyright infringement. Why do all of those people deserve no punishment at all, while this guy deserves to lose his home?
My issue is not that he should be allowed to do what he did, but that the punishment is:
a) Extremely excessive, even for a habitual, repeat offender. We allow rapists to keep their homes (and even provide them with a new one!); is this worse than rape?
b) Extremely sporatically enforced. Would you support a law that said you stood a one in a million chance of being executed for jaywalking?
Slashdot Mirror
we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Really? Most teenagers I ask about Linux go, "What's that? Some kind of car?"
Hey, that's cool. If he wants to remix a book in the public domain, that's fine- he's well within his rights to do so. Passing it off as the original Origin of Species? Well, that's pretty-freakin'-dubious, especially considering the controversy around this, but I guess he's well within his rights to do that as well. A kind of 'Origin of Species 2.0' with full Christian-theology compatibility, I suppose you could say.
But, of course, evolutionists are free to do the same to the Bible. Let's see how it might look...
1:3 And God said, Let the Universe expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continue to expand to this day. ... ... ... ...
1:4 And God saw the bang, that it was good: and God divided the photons from the.. lack of photons. Not his most crowning achievement, but he thought it profound.
1:5 And God called the light, typically bought upon by a rotation of a planet relative to its axis, Day, and the darkness he called Night. Well- not really. The naming of the day and night cycle will come much later, with the evolution of man and man's languages, but at least he thought of the concept at this point and possibly gave it it a name in his own language. Plus, being a cosmic being who didn't live on any planet the concept of night and day really had no meaning for him, and he hadn't even created any planets at this point and oh I've gone crosseyed. Let's move on.
1:8 And God called the firmament Deep Space, wherein he created thousands and millions of other similar solar systems and planets. Inhabited? Perhaps, but that is a secret God will keep until the great revealing (or not. Psyche!).
1:10 And God called one particular lump of soil, carbon and hydrogen/oxygen liquid Earth; and on it he planted the seeds of primordial life, which would one day evolve into man: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass eventually, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, with each generation changing very slightly to adapt to its surroundings, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind (slightly changing with each generation, adapting and improving), and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creat- wait, no. This came first. Before the grass- at least, according to the most recent scientific theory. So yeah. Disregard what I said earlier, the water stuff came first.
1:21 And God eventually created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and much later every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and adapt, and fill the waters in- wait, no. Don't go back into the water on second thought, that's going backwards again.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth eventually bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God eventually made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us eventually make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that have after billions of years creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own imag- wait. This isn't really possible- humans can't survive in the unprotected void of space... at best it would be a superficial appearance of being 'Go
Replying to my own post here, but also remember that this is exactly what ReactOS did when there was a similar allegation by Microsoft- and were largely applauded for it. Again, it's the sane, rational thing to do and in my eyes doesn't admit any guilt whatsoever. That doesn't mean a GPL violation isn't there, mind, but it means that if there is one this is exactly how it should be handled.
Now now, calm down a moment. Imagine what would happen if they *didn't* pull the code- there would be a veritable shitstorm in the Free Software community. This is the smart, rational thing to do.
On a side note, this really acknowledges the power of the GPL- if even a single report says that there is a GPL violation and this causes Microsoft (its 'arch nemesis) to pull a tool for their newly launched apple-of-their-eye.
Here's to hoping Mandriva 2010 undoes some of the damage caused to the Linux image by the Ubuntu Karmic release SNAFU.
Everyone keeps saying that, but... for my home I upgraded a dozen total Ubuntu installs including desktop machines, laptops, virtual machines, file and database servers, MythBuntu frontends and backends... and encountered absolutely no issues. :/ The first I heard of any upgrade problems at all was on Slashdot.
Wormhole based travel and the possibility of extra-dimensional mishaps? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take my billion-year panspermia, thank you.
Humour by repetition and copy-pasta? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take sarcasm or snide at worst, thank you.
Limited stop options and the serious risk of drowning? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a Ultracapacitor Bus which recharges at each stop, thank you.
So this The Prisoner... ... is the new number two?
Again, as an Australian, clarify please.
I have no problem with overselling. It's necessary and efficient. I have problems with [b]dramatic[/b] overselling, particularly when coupled with a 'we can disconnect you for no reason' clause. Which means ISPs can sell a substancially defective product to people who'll significantly undersell it, while cutting off anyone who uses even close to their allotment.
Reductio ad car analogy, would you buy a car which shut down after being driven 40miles in a day, despite being told that the car had a 400 mile range? (it does, but only 40 miles per day... what- you want to drive MOOOORE? EXCESSIVE USAGE, BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, YOUR CAR SHUTS DOWN!)
This has a simple explaination.
Money is power; simple as that. If you have money, you can get people to do things- it's power. There are other forms of power but money's the most common (and, in many but not all cases, the most powerful).
Restrictions on how you can spend your money devales that money. $1,000 is a nice sum of money for (almost) anyone to receive, but if it can only be spent on peanuts only you can eat? Can you eat a grand's worth of peanuts? What if you're allergic? In this case the money is basically worthless, because it has no power.
Almost all ISPs want the power to restrict the usage of their clientbase. In some cases this is benign- stopping spammers from throwing out millions of spam e-mails a day, for example. In other cases, not so (blocking/disconnecting high usage users then dramatically overselling their network). But want of power isn't a problem; everyone wants power. Everyone. Every individual, every corporation... everyone. So that's okay.
The reason why they are rejecting the money is because it has external factors. It has a stigma of being 'government bailout money'. It can only be used for certain things, and it has strings (a'la net neutrality). The ISPs have evaluated their money, decided that the restrictions limit its power too greatly and that it would be a net power loss for them.
It's as simple as that.
The best way to dispose of a hard drive is to open it up to get the platters, blast them with a blowtorch until they become brittle, smash them to tiny bits/powder with a hammer then scatter the tiny bits into the ocean.
The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.
If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?
Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed? Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?
Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.
*sigh* Jedi will be the "Night Elf Hunter" (or more recently, Night Elf Death Knight) of TOR then.
You knew what I meant. I'm not talking about the latest Ubuntu, I'm talking about the latest Photoshop.
Everything I've seen suggests that it is viewed like anything else - a potential tool that our customers may or may not benefit from, if used correctly.
This is how all software should be, in my opinion. Creating a zealous movement around it (be that Apple, Linux or Microsoft) does nobody any good. Pieces of software are tools; sometimes you just want a hammer to run games (Windows), sometimes you want a saw to host a web server (Linux), sometimes you want a screwdriver to boost your 'hip' score (Apple).
Use the correct tool and your life will forever be easier. The Free Software Movement is very important and cool, but ultimately when you find a nail you better have a hammer.
Well, the "With us or against us" binary logic that served Bush throughout his presidency didn't end up doing him much good at the end. Hopefully this kind of rot will go the same way- useful as a simplification early on, but ultimately revealed as flawed and unproductive.
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
No, I think you're exaggerating pretty substantially (I'm sure other replies will correlate this). Almost everyone outside of the "IP is immoral, man, dude, bro... you can't OWN an IDEA, man!" crowd accept that torrenting is, basically, wrong. It's just the degree of 'wrongness' that's at question, along with how much people should be punished for doing it.
I believe jaywalking is wrong. I jaywalk frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught jaywalking, I would just shrug and pay the $50 fine or whatever, because I acknowledge what I did was wrong and accept that I should be lightly punished for it.
I believe torrenting stuff is wrong too. I bittorrent frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught bittorrenting, I would either pay the exorbitant settlement ($3,100 or so) OR (far more likely) refuse and get dragged through court, paying many times this amount in court fees, legal fees, lost wages etc.
This is the big difference. That copyright infringement is considered by most people to be a minor offense, much akin to jaywalking. The problem is that the MPAA/RIAA/etc believe copyright infringement to be in some cases worse than murder- so I would counter your argument that "people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response" by saying that the RIAA/MPAA do also believe that utterly destroying someone's life/life savings (and if they had their way serious jail time and felony status) is an appropriate response to downloading a CD. But instead of just talking about it, they *actually go out and do it*.
Who are the real zealots?
Let's say I'm really really offended at your post. So offended that I decide to plant a terabyte drive full of child porn in your house, then break into your house and "uncover" it. I admit to everything except planting the drive ("The guy wanted to sell me a drive full of kiddy porn, so I broke in to see if it was real so I could take my information to the police"). I face a fine/misdemeanor for burglary (or nothing and get lauded as a hero), you face at best a lengthy court battle along with the social stigma of being accused of being a pedophile, and at worst registration on the sex offenders list and possibly decades in prison.
And let's not get into what might happen to multi-billion dollar corporations who can pay any "gathered evidence illegally fine" without any trouble (even if it's millions). Do you really want a situation where any big company could send you to prison on a whim?
First they laugh at you. (They certainly did at that- Linux on a *tiny computer?* It'll never fly... hahaha!) ... then you ignore you. (The nettop market was certainly ignored by Microsoft for enough time to qualify.) ... then they fight you. (Current stage...) ... then you win. (Well, time will tell...)
It's one thing to side with copyright, quite another to side with the MAFIAA.
In fact the two seem somewhat mutually exclusive.
My problem (and the problem many others have) is not that I support The Pirate Bay, but that the judge is horrifically biased. If you were on trial for possession of pot, and the judge was a member of a large number of "hard on drugs" think tanks, would you expect a fair trial?
The ten commandments are also a little outdated. Thou shalt not covert another man's wife? Really? So I can't fap to some other guy's chick if she's married? Okay, fair call. But women can covert all the men they want? That's not exactly fair. What about gay couples? Coverting is completely okay? Lesbians, too? Interesting...
If the ten commandments and by extension the bible were, indeed, a living document a LOT more changes would come before the copywrite infringment stuff. Sorry.
Millions of people break the law every day; this particular issue of law, specifically. Copyright infringement. Why do all of those people deserve no punishment at all, while this guy deserves to lose his home?
My issue is not that he should be allowed to do what he did, but that the punishment is:
a) Extremely excessive, even for a habitual, repeat offender. We allow rapists to keep their homes (and even provide them with a new one!); is this worse than rape?
b) Extremely sporatically enforced. Would you support a law that said you stood a one in a million chance of being executed for jaywalking?