Vietnam wasn't just about Vietnam, it was a stopping the nasty communism from taking over the world. Do you think those evil communists would have stopped at Vietnam! no! they won't rest until they pillaged our cities and raped our women. ---- Give me a break. The slippery slope argument was fanaticism back then, and its fanaticism now. The RIAA hates napster because it allows users to intermittenly send mp3s to anyone looking for them. You can't do that with email, and if you put it on a webpage its *much* easier to shut down.
Where or not its right to ban tools that allow users to break the law is another debate, but lets no turn this into something larger than it is.
I'm not a expert on quantum computing, but I thought it was still largely theortically. That is to say, they don't really know if electons *really* act that way, or if its just a good mathmatical model for describing how they act. If it turns out to be the latter, I'm afraid quantum computing will look much like alchemy.
I logged on to/. to get *away* from studying for my final on Nazis and Germany tomorrow. And now I have to go work on my existentialism paper and talk about Nietzsche, who wasn't a nazi, but was bastardized by them. I tell ya, someone should ban these nazis before they go any further. . .
Well, I guess actually stopping them before they killed 6 million jews would have be idea; stopping the aution of their junk seems a bit pathetic compartively.
From the DVD FAQ: CSS is akin to the lock on your house. . .. DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house. . .. Have the defendants actually used DeCSS to make illegal copies?
It is irrelevant whether or not the defendants were personally engaged in making illegal copies. They are clearly "providing the keys to the castle," which is in violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the federal copyright law.
Too bad they didn't extend their analogy, then I think the last paragraph would have read something like this: It is irrelevant whether or not the defendants used to lock picks to rob your house. They are clearly providing the lock picks. AFAIK providing lock picks isn't illegal. Providing lock picks to criminals *might* be, but that makes the question quite relevant.
Re:Artists need to protect their livelihoods
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
First of all, let me agree with you, artists do need to protect their livelihood. Of course, its my opinion that artists will continue to have a livelihood in one way or another as long as there is an interest in their service. And if they want to do something like sue every napster uses who downloads their product, thats their right. I don't think its their right to ban napster (as my university is considering) because napster isn't breaking the law. Certianly it enables other people to break the law, and perhaps its not "fair" that it is more difficult to prosecute 300,000 users rather than one central service, but corparations have been engaging in "unfair" pratices that comply with the letter of the law for years.
As for the part about restricting the internet, I really think that is a bad idea. First of all, I think you underestimate young people. Yes, perhaps they are more easily swayed by information that you or I (or course I'm only 20, so perhaps I am too easily swayed), but the way to help them make correct decision when faced with "rhetoric and promises" is to educate and guide them, not restrict them.
And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of an examination for access to the web. It would require some kind of agency give the exam, which presumably would be government. But whose government? And even if it were enacted, would it really reduce crime? I had to take an exam to get my driver's license, but there are convicted drunk drivers who get into cars everyday.
Finally I'd like to refue the claim that "The net is becoming a cesspool and a haven for criminals," Of course there is more crime on the net, but also many more people. The net is used every day by responsible people. It allows freedom, and more importantly it allows choice. If you want the net to be a cesspool, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will back up your claim. But I've never been to them, and you don't have to go to them either. If you want my solution to you "problem," I would suggest you create your own network. Issue your exam before allowing people to join your network. If your right and people do want the net cleaned up, it shouldn't be difficult to find people to join. Personally I'll be happy to never visit.
Personally, I think the point of this whole point of the napster debate isn't (for most people) trying to make the musicians and other artists work for nothing. The (philosophical) supports of napster (I'll ignore the people who just want the newest Backstreet Boys album for free), feel that the business model for distrabution of art should be changed. The RIAA doesn't like change, mostly because the changes would likely put them (and their overpaid buerocrats) out of business.
There are hundreds of ways to make money from music and art; you can sell the music, you can sell tickets to concert, you can sell T-shirt, you can write (perform) for commision. Our culture demands art, and as long as that demand exists, people will find a way to make money from it.
Will napster be a factor in a successful new method of distributing music? Personally, I doubt it, but that doesn't mean that it should be destroyed just because RIAA suits feel their current profit margin is falling.
[from Ronald Reagan's famous characterization of the communist Soviet Union] Formerly IBM, then Mircrosoft, then AOL. Now it's only used mockingly to describe any colaboration between any two disliked parties. "Do you hear Dave from accounting is working on the project with Steve from Marketing?" "Yeah, we'd better stop that Evil Empire right now."
Its ironic in the Alanis Morissette sence of the word. (Notice the "dontcha-think" attached to the end) Thats the same song that considers rain on your wedding day, and good advice that you can't take to be ironic.
This might be OT, but could someone explain the Nietzsche reference to me? what does a Microsoft gaming console have to do with Nietzsche's most poetic (and most difficult to understand, IMO) work?
I generally agree with the idea that we do need a new way to think about informatin, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. There is a lot of talk about making information free, but very little about how to do that pratically in our society. Do we commision pop stars to write songs that we (the general public) then own? If we distribute funds (goverment or otherwise) to artists, how do we decide who gets the money? Would George Lucas be able to make the next Star Wars prequils if he depended on public finacing? I highly doubt it. So, what would this ideal free-information economy look like?
Slashdot Mirror
Vietnam wasn't just about Vietnam, it was a stopping the nasty communism from taking over the world. Do you think those evil communists would have stopped at Vietnam! no! they won't rest until they pillaged our cities and raped our women.
----
Give me a break. The slippery slope argument was fanaticism back then, and its fanaticism now. The RIAA hates napster because it allows users to intermittenly send mp3s to anyone looking for them. You can't do that with email, and if you put it on a webpage its *much* easier to shut down.
Where or not its right to ban tools that allow users to break the law is another debate, but lets no turn this into something larger than it is.
I'm not a expert on quantum computing, but I thought it was still largely theortically. That is to say, they don't really know if electons *really* act that way, or if its just a good mathmatical model for describing how they act. If it turns out to be the latter, I'm afraid quantum computing will look much like alchemy.
I logged on to /. to get *away* from studying for my final on Nazis and Germany tomorrow. And now I have to go work on my existentialism paper and talk about Nietzsche, who wasn't a nazi, but was bastardized by them. I tell ya, someone should ban these nazis before they go any further. . .
Well, I guess actually stopping them before they killed 6 million jews would have be idea; stopping the aution of their junk seems a bit pathetic compartively.
I'm making no sense. sorry.
The onion had an insight into your question, here
CSS is akin to the lock on your house.
. .
DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house.
. .
Have the defendants actually used DeCSS to make illegal copies?
It is irrelevant whether or not the defendants were personally engaged in
making illegal copies. They are clearly "providing the keys to the castle," which
is in violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the federal copyright law.
Too bad they didn't extend their analogy, then I think the last paragraph would have read something like this:
It is irrelevant whether or not the defendants used to lock picks to rob your house. They are clearly providing the lock picks.
AFAIK providing lock picks isn't illegal. Providing lock picks to criminals *might* be, but that makes the question quite relevant.
First of all, let me agree with you, artists do need to protect their livelihood. Of course, its my opinion that artists will continue to have a livelihood in one way or another as long as there is an interest in their service. And if they want to do something like sue every napster uses who downloads their product, thats their right. I don't think its their right to ban napster (as my university is considering) because napster isn't breaking the law. Certianly it enables other people to break the law, and perhaps its not "fair" that it is more difficult to prosecute 300,000 users rather than one central service, but corparations have been engaging in "unfair" pratices that comply with the letter of the law for years.
As for the part about restricting the internet, I really think that is a bad idea. First of all, I think you underestimate young people. Yes, perhaps they are more easily swayed by information that you or I (or course I'm only 20, so perhaps I am too easily swayed), but the way to help them make correct decision when faced with "rhetoric and promises" is to educate and guide them, not restrict them.
And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of an examination for access to the web. It would require some kind of agency give the exam, which presumably would be government. But whose government? And even if it were enacted, would it really reduce crime? I had to take an exam to get my driver's license, but there are convicted drunk drivers who get into cars everyday.
Finally I'd like to refue the claim that "The net is becoming a cesspool and a haven for criminals," Of course there is more crime on the net, but also many more people. The net is used every day by responsible people. It allows freedom, and more importantly it allows choice. If you want the net to be a cesspool, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will back up your claim. But I've never been to them, and you don't have to go to them either. If you want my solution to you "problem," I would suggest you create your own network. Issue your exam before allowing people to join your network. If your right and people do want the net cleaned up, it shouldn't be difficult to find people to join. Personally I'll be happy to never visit.
There are hundreds of ways to make money from music and art; you can sell the music, you can sell tickets to concert, you can sell T-shirt, you can write (perform) for commision. Our culture demands art, and as long as that demand exists, people will find a way to make money from it.
Will napster be a factor in a successful new method of distributing music? Personally, I doubt it, but that doesn't mean that it should be destroyed just because RIAA suits feel their current profit margin is falling.
Evil Empire n.
[from Ronald Reagan's famous characterization of the communist Soviet Union] Formerly IBM, then Mircrosoft, then AOL. Now it's only used mockingly to describe any colaboration between any two disliked parties. "Do you hear Dave from accounting is working on the project with Steve from Marketing?" "Yeah, we'd better stop that Evil Empire right now."
Its ironic in the Alanis Morissette sence of the word. (Notice the "dontcha-think" attached to the end) Thats the same song that considers rain on your wedding day, and good advice that you can't take to be ironic.
In otherwords, it isn't ironic.
Worst Series Ever.
</The Simpson's Comicbook Owner Voice>
This might be OT, but could someone explain the Nietzsche reference to me? what does a Microsoft gaming console have to do with Nietzsche's most poetic (and most difficult to understand, IMO) work?
heh, reminds me of this Onion article
So, that'd be about .5 then?
I generally agree with the idea that we do need a new way to think about informatin, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. There is a lot of talk about making information free, but very little about how to do that pratically in our society. Do we commision pop stars to write songs that we (the general public) then own? If we distribute funds (goverment or otherwise) to artists, how do we decide who gets the money? Would George Lucas be able to make the next Star Wars prequils if he depended on public finacing? I highly doubt it. So, what would this ideal free-information economy look like?