Who said anything about others enforcing it for free? At the very least the other companies will be saving money from having to devote man hours to going through DMCA notices. The real people who should be blamed here are those that issue takedown notices illegally and those who post copyrighted content onto other people's websites illegally without permission of the website owner.
So if I want to make a living from the works I've created who wins in an anarchist society? Me or those that want to access my content for free forcing me to get a second job with NO hope of making a living from my work that they clearly enjoy?
Because these businesses have entered a mutually beneficial agreement with each other to institute a system that protects their collective copyright. Why should you be guaranteed a position in this collective agreement? This is the United States of America still isn't it? Where people can control who they associate as per the Constitution? Or has the first amendment been repealed while I wasn't looking?
No the copyright holders want to get compensation for people accessing their content as the United States Constitution allows them to. A major player of the software industry has stepped forward to sell their services, which will funnily enough also be protected under copyright law (just as Linux is).
What does the tech industry get out of it? The ability to willingly limit what can be posted on their website for the price of no longer having to manually stop their users from breaking the law.
how long until our good buddies at the justice department start to demand that other filters be put into place besides copyright ones? That's irrelevant. What matters is how long until we get off our asses and take back Congress. I'm also open to suggestions on how to do this, although one thing I'm doing is voting the next election. Will you at least do that much?
Frankly, they need less of a say about what goes on online, not more. The internet was never designed to be their bitch where people can only do what the various media and entertainment companies want. Nice strawman. However if the entertainment and media companies decided that people couldn't post on any forums except their own, they wouldn't be able to stop us. All their doing is controlling a small portion of people's activities based on copyright law which the constitution gives Congress the ability to create. In my opinion the law is currently unconstitutional but I'd rather see people work towards copyright reform rather then create an anarchist society where people do whatever they want. It certainly isn't unreasonable for media companies to seek to protect their copyright under the law.
Time and money should be spent on developing the internet not turning it into some media-company run advertising network. Yes because without this no-one will be able to post independent entertainment or do any number of non-entertainment activities, right?
What next? Sue movie theaters for displaying trailers of films you didn't pay to see in the first place? Wha? I don't get this "next step" of yours. If a theater was showing trailers without permission you can bet your ass there'd be trouble. However movie theaters don['t do that. Instead they get paid to show the ads. This makes no sense.
Heck, if you don't even get a preview/prelisten of the movies/songs you are interested in in the first place, how do you know whether you'll want to buy them later? And they still wonder why their revenue is on the decline?
These guys should get a clue from RadioHead. Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses. If society rules this filter too draconian they'll move to content that isn't protected by the filter.
An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser. If it is then companies selling such crippled products should be forced to disclose it first. As for it being built into websites, I see no problem with that provided they have fair use exceptions. After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws. Although companies should only institute systems that take into account their local laws, so these situations do not occur.
If a system didn't incorporate one of those conditions, then I would not patron any website that utilized it. The DMCA, for all its flaws, is good in that if someone erroneously issues a DMCA takedown notice and the host complies (safest course of action). The person who originally put it up can issue their own DMCA notice to have it rehosted and there is nothing the "copyright owner" can do execpt take the person to court. In these situations the DMCA (when its not abused and its the duty of webhosts to make sure they haven't been sent a clearly abusive DMCA takedown notice) is good in that it has checks and balances. Any industry wide copyright filter should have their own checks and balances, in my opinion in the form of my first paragraph.
If you take away all copyright then [url=http://www.reallifecomics.com/]these[/url] [url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/]people[/url] might stop producing work. Is this what you truly want? A society where all writers must take another job with NO possibility of making money?
Krazy Kitten (oops, that's the next Ubuntu release, sorry) No, no. Its horny horses. Ubuntu still has to get through Indecent Iguana's and Jolly Jackrabbits before it gets to Krazy Kittens.
If you were truly a concerned citizen why didn't you put a copy of the receipt aside in case any authorities came to you? Why didn't you call the police or FBI yourself? This has the sound of fiction to me.
Regardless I would always allow the police access to my house to search it without a warrant to help them in an investigation. However if I had the keys to me neighbor's house I wouldn't give the police access to that house as it would infringe on someone else's privacy. Perhaps you shouldn't be so willing to give up the constitutionally protected privacy of others.
I'm not bookmarking 5,000,000 video sites to do casual browsing. That's stupid. If you watch 5,000,0000 different shows/clips in a month then I'd say that's not the only thing stupid.
I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? Cheaper? Yes. More profitable? Uncertain. A company tries to make a profit by hosting their content online and people at slashdot are still unhappy? Some of you people truly are just pirates at heart aren't you?
I'd recommend backing it up regardless of what people say. I've never heard someone complain about having a backup they didn't need, yet I've often heard people complain about not having a backup they needed.
Do you really need to enter the command line to simply upgrade without downloading the ISO? If so I have my doubts as to how newbie friendly Ubuntu truly is.
This is no more a Troll then this post. Yet this has been moderated a troll while the other post has been modded Funny. Get it straight mods, this sort of inconsistent moderating is unfair for everyone else and undermines the whole system.
Having said that this post is Redundant what with being posted a full 3 minutes after the former post saying the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about others enforcing it for free? At the very least the other companies will be saving money from having to devote man hours to going through DMCA notices. The real people who should be blamed here are those that issue takedown notices illegally and those who post copyrighted content onto other people's websites illegally without permission of the website owner.
So if I want to make a living from the works I've created who wins in an anarchist society? Me or those that want to access my content for free forcing me to get a second job with NO hope of making a living from my work that they clearly enjoy?
Once again I looked at several with no notice. Why don't you just link to one as you seem to have a lot less trouble finding them.
Because these businesses have entered a mutually beneficial agreement with each other to institute a system that protects their collective copyright. Why should you be guaranteed a position in this collective agreement? This is the United States of America still isn't it? Where people can control who they associate as per the Constitution? Or has the first amendment been repealed while I wasn't looking?
These guys should get a clue from RadioHead. Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses. If society rules this filter too draconian they'll move to content that isn't protected by the filter.
I just did a search for Daily Show clips and they were all there. Could you provide an example please?
An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser. If it is then companies selling such crippled products should be forced to disclose it first. As for it being built into websites, I see no problem with that provided they have fair use exceptions. After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws. Although companies should only institute systems that take into account their local laws, so these situations do not occur.
If a system didn't incorporate one of those conditions, then I would not patron any website that utilized it. The DMCA, for all its flaws, is good in that if someone erroneously issues a DMCA takedown notice and the host complies (safest course of action). The person who originally put it up can issue their own DMCA notice to have it rehosted and there is nothing the "copyright owner" can do execpt take the person to court. In these situations the DMCA (when its not abused and its the duty of webhosts to make sure they haven't been sent a clearly abusive DMCA takedown notice) is good in that it has checks and balances. Any industry wide copyright filter should have their own checks and balances, in my opinion in the form of my first paragraph.
They don't care about the law, they only care about getting their pound of flesh.
If you take away all copyright then [url=http://www.reallifecomics.com/]these[/url] [url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/]people[/url] might stop producing work. Is this what you truly want? A society where all writers must take another job with NO possibility of making money?
These Europeans haven't heard of the theory that god created the world? I truly wonder at the intelligence of your friends, if not their existence.
If you were truly a concerned citizen why didn't you put a copy of the receipt aside in case any authorities came to you? Why didn't you call the police or FBI yourself? This has the sound of fiction to me.
Regardless I would always allow the police access to my house to search it without a warrant to help them in an investigation. However if I had the keys to me neighbor's house I wouldn't give the police access to that house as it would infringe on someone else's privacy. Perhaps you shouldn't be so willing to give up the constitutionally protected privacy of others.
Dude, I don't know if I want to wash myself with my own fat.
I'd recommend backing it up regardless of what people say. I've never heard someone complain about having a backup they didn't need, yet I've often heard people complain about not having a backup they needed.
Could it be waiting a few days until its servers aren't quite so heavy with people downloading the ISO?
Do you really need to enter the command line to simply upgrade without downloading the ISO? If so I have my doubts as to how newbie friendly Ubuntu truly is.
I wasn't railing against it being modded down, just that one post was modded up while a near identical one was modded down. Pretty inconsistent.
I sure hope they're not using Google or Yahoo in their illegal activities, or else Big GeGe just might knock on their door tomorrow night.
Now I'm a troll as is the post I responded to while the first post is still funny. The only funny thing here is the moderation of this article.
He waited until man's time on Earth had reached the halfway point. Which means we've got another 196,000 years to go before the end times happens.
This is no more a Troll then this post. Yet this has been moderated a troll while the other post has been modded Funny. Get it straight mods, this sort of inconsistent moderating is unfair for everyone else and undermines the whole system.
Having said that this post is Redundant what with being posted a full 3 minutes after the former post saying the same thing.