Thats why your generation has no Led Zeppelin, no Who, no Rush. No great songs that you'll still be listening to in 30 years. Now, what're you going to do about it?
On the contrary, this generation has some excellent artists and bands. You're just not likely to hear them on the radio or find their CDs hawked at McDonalds.
I thought MTV was taking an anti-napter stand. They had the Napster creator guy on stage for about 1 minute and quickly got him out of there, but Metallica got a whole anti-Napster skit that made it look like Napster is the tool of dumb college kids.
Which basically goes to show MTV's mindset: they don't want to take a stand. This way they can please both sides. They'd rather not lose support of the artists, but they know that dumbshits make up a good portion of their viewership as well, and don't want to piss them off either.
His reasoning is that since Information can be free, (and wants to, in the water sense), it is immoral for it not to be free. Reason being that it deprives millions of people of the use of it which is a larger moral consideration than the one person who may or may not be deprived of some royalties.
That sounds to me like a tyranny of the masses. It's just as unfair to enslave a few for the benefit of the many. The society of the US has two ideologies that counter-balance: 1) Majority rules. 2) The minority's rights should not be removed due to the whim of the majority.
Because you ARE giving it away. You may not transfer your "fair use" copy to another person since this deprives the copyright holder of a potential source of revenue.
Another source of income? For what? Buying a song twice? No music company has a right to another stream of revenue from a CD purchaser.
That is essentially the message sent from the settlement: They want you to not only pay for your music, but pay for it more than once if you want to use it in any "non-standard" way.
So if mp3 has to start charging for my.mp3.com to recoupe the costs of royalties to the RIAA, I know that I'll have no moral problems with, say, taking a friend's CD and using Beam-It w/o paying for the original. Why? Because I'm already paying for it.
> You're kidding, right? mp3.com just made 'fair use' convenient, allowing you do DL mp3s of stuff you already owned (just purchased or already had)
Or temporarily borrowed for 5 minutes for beamit to read.
CD-burners are cheap these days, and growing more plentiful. Really, it's just as easy to duplicate a CD as it is to download the mp3's off of mp3.com -- and you get better quality as well. The RIAA didn't lose any money off of my.mp3.com.
This feature would only be useful in "tracking confidential documents" only if the person copying those confidential documents is most clueless. Ways I could easily get around those web bugs:
View the document on a computer unconnected to the network
strings confidential.doc
Firewalling connections to the outside
The list goes on? I like security through obscurity, but not when it's the only method of security, and certainly not when it gives a false sense of security.
Now.. if this was some type of encrypted document that could only be viewed in MS Word with a network connection available to the original site... I wouldn't be quite as skeptical.
Ironically enough, many people's favourite sequence in the Matrix is the lobby shootout - which hardly features any CGI at all (except the wire removal).
How odd. I'd have to say the lobby shootout scene is very easily the lowest point of the film, where the Matrix dissolves from something truly interesting into just another big budget summer ho-hum. The movie would have been so much better without that scene. It's still good, though.
I've got it... rather than use the internet to spread information, lets restrict it in such a way that no useful information can be obtained.
That has, in fact, been almost the entire point of the commercialization of the web in the last few years. I am glad that it's easier to buy things online now, but now it seems to be so difficult to find anything else.
Sadly, your congressman will never read it. Just look at the news on TV - you have to get your message across quickly. It's all about sound bites, short video clips.
That's in communication from the congressperson to the citizens in general. Communication from citizen to congressperson can be much different and definitely need not be limited to video clips or sound bites.
So as I read it, you're actually allowed to pirate copyrighted material, as long as it's cheap and you don't redistribute it. But you aren't allowed to crack any "anti-piracy measures" in the process.
Thanks. If that actually holds up, (and there has to be something to contract that somewhere) then I consider that situation to be completely utterly bizarre.
The monopoly is on the manufacture of region-free DVD players with digital outputs and no video-distorting Macrovision circuit. The harm to the public is the fact that you can't buy one.
But to critisize them for getting a BIT radical and tearing down some posters???
Sure, I'll do that.
That's such a fucking hipocritical attack you make me ill.
Not really. (Hypocritical, that is)
What about when pro-lifers shoot and kill doctors they suspect of performing abortions?
I'd say they deserve worse punishment. Life in prison at least.
What about when you people bomb clinics where abortions take place, regardless of whatever else goes on in there?
See above. Or wait... you're one of those people who think that any person who dislikes abortion (or is simply in favor of allowing both sides to express their views) is automatically a zealot who endorses killing doctors.
I see. So if a given platform has no licensed players available, everyone's SOL?
Yes, basically.:) That's how a monopolistic cartel that tries to expand its control works. It's really a tribute to them that everyone wants what they produce so badly (and not just steal, but use in the way it was meant to be used) that they're willing to break the law for it. Ironic, that...
If the movie studios want to make it illegal to copy DVDs, or illegal to view them on Linux, then that's their right.
I hope this was a mistake.:) Here is where I would really disagree with you. The movie studios don't have the right to make anything illegal. Something that has traditionally been legal (making your own player) should not be declared illegal simply because the MPAA wishes it. The MPAA should not be the decider of what is legal and illegal. They can argue and try to convince, like any other citizen can. Unfortunately, the movie studios also weird more financial power (and more political power, I'll wager) then nearly any other organization in the US. Never underestimate the power of Holleywood.:)
What you bought was the right to view that movie under certain specific conditions.
See, I believe this statement is somewhat misleading. You are legally allowed to view it under any conditions you want, as long as, again, you don't violate copyright law. Now it just so happens that the only way to view DVDs is through players that had licensed with the CCA, and breaking that encryption is illegal. But that's different. If the DVD-CCA could legally enforce what circumstances you watch DVDs on, they wouldn't even need to bother with encryption. The ban against breaking encryption gives them a roundabout way to get what they want, but it's still not the same as legally obligating someone to only view in a certain manner. The end result is pretty much the same, true, but what the law allows and disallows is different between those two cases.
In fact, I believe you are actually allowed to develop some type of CSS-DVD-player, but it's the actual distribution of such tools that is illegal. I haven't actually looked into this though, so I might just be repeating SlashDot rumor (ie, talking out of my ass).
Well, I say I did buy it and I claim I have those rights. Show me the piece of paper that proves you are correct. You refer to some "license" I never saw nor heard
Well, I say I did buy it and I claim I have those rights. Show me the piece of paper that proves you are correct. You refer to some "license" I never saw nor heard of, even from Kaplan.
Okay, here's one from the MPAA: select the FAQ
Mmmmm. Generally I've found that if you're asking if a license is legally enforcable, the person wishing to enforce the license is generally not the best person to ask. It's like asking the tobacco companies if cigarettes are really all that dangerous. The answer you get might not really be all that close to truth, and the people giving the answers will often let opinions masquerade as fact. There is no agreement between DVD buyer and seller. There is only copyright law. That is why charging "friends" to view the DVD you bought is illegal -- because it's against copyright law, not because it's against any type of license. Of course, the license is often going to reflect and reprint copyright law, which makes those parts of the license legally enforcable. But again, that's only because it's already against the law.
I can't understand anyone thinking that it is okay to crack encryption and then copy whatever they want. You don't own the code - just the right to view it under their terms.
You came so very close to stabbing right where the center of the issue is. My big question is: why should people who want to watch DVDs be forced to view it under the MPAA's terms? Why can't they view it any way they want as long as it doesn't break regular copyright law? What gives the MPAA the authority to decide how I watch DVDs? I bought the DVDs. I didn't buy a "license to watch it based on their terms." I bought a DVD to do with as I wish, as long as I didn't distribute copies.
Censorware is useless if people can still access porn because that is it's only purpose: preventing people from accessing porn!
I would say that in a public library-type setting, this is not censorware's biggest purpose. The purpose is not to completely block anything someone might find objectionable, but to absolve the institution from lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, this generation has some excellent artists and bands. You're just not likely to hear them on the radio or find their CDs hawked at McDonalds.
It wasn't. He started at -1 and was modded up.
Which basically goes to show MTV's mindset: they don't want to take a stand. This way they can please both sides. They'd rather not lose support of the artists, but they know that dumbshits make up a good portion of their viewership as well, and don't want to piss them off either.
IMO, nothing is off limits for troll fodder.
That sounds to me like a tyranny of the masses. It's just as unfair to enslave a few for the benefit of the many. The society of the US has two ideologies that counter-balance: 1) Majority rules. 2) The minority's rights should not be removed due to the whim of the majority.
Another source of income? For what? Buying a song twice? No music company has a right to another stream of revenue from a CD purchaser.
That is essentially the message sent from the settlement: They want you to not only pay for your music, but pay for it more than once if you want to use it in any "non-standard" way.
So if mp3 has to start charging for my.mp3.com to recoupe the costs of royalties to the RIAA, I know that I'll have no moral problems with, say, taking a friend's CD and using Beam-It w/o paying for the original. Why? Because I'm already paying for it.
Or temporarily borrowed for 5 minutes for beamit to read.
CD-burners are cheap these days, and growing more plentiful. Really, it's just as easy to duplicate a CD as it is to download the mp3's off of mp3.com -- and you get better quality as well. The RIAA didn't lose any money off of my.mp3.com.
- View the document on a computer unconnected to the network
- strings confidential.doc
- Firewalling connections to the outside
The list goes on? I like security through obscurity, but not when it's the only method of security, and certainly not when it gives a false sense of security.Now.. if this was some type of encrypted document that could only be viewed in MS Word with a network connection available to the original site... I wouldn't be quite as skeptical.
How odd. I'd have to say the lobby shootout scene is very easily the lowest point of the film, where the Matrix dissolves from something truly interesting into just another big budget summer ho-hum. The movie would have been so much better without that scene. It's still good, though.
That has, in fact, been almost the entire point of the commercialization of the web in the last few years. I am glad that it's easier to buy things online now, but now it seems to be so difficult to find anything else.
That's in communication from the congressperson to the citizens in general. Communication from citizen to congressperson can be much different and definitely need not be limited to video clips or sound bites.
And kill.
Thanks. If that actually holds up, (and there has to be something to contract that somewhere) then I consider that situation to be completely utterly bizarre.
Sure you can. I did.
Sure, I'll do that.
That's such a fucking hipocritical attack you make me ill.
Not really. (Hypocritical, that is)
What about when pro-lifers shoot and kill doctors they suspect of performing abortions?
I'd say they deserve worse punishment. Life in prison at least.
What about when you people bomb clinics where abortions take place, regardless of whatever else goes on in there?
See above. Or wait... you're one of those people who think that any person who dislikes abortion (or is simply in favor of allowing both sides to express their views) is automatically a zealot who endorses killing doctors.
Why don't you do us all a favor and just die.
You go first, tell me what it's like.
Look Ma! I'm responding to a troll!
Be careful. Many capture cards coming out these days will refuse to capture a video stream that has a macrovision signal in it.
Yes, basically. :) That's how a monopolistic cartel that tries to expand its control works. It's really a tribute to them that everyone wants what they produce so badly (and not just steal, but use in the way it was meant to be used) that they're willing to break the law for it. Ironic, that...
I hope this was a mistake. :) Here is where I would really disagree with you. The movie studios don't have the right to make anything illegal. Something that has traditionally been legal (making your own player) should not be declared illegal simply because the MPAA wishes it. The MPAA should not be the decider of what is legal and illegal. They can argue and try to convince, like any other citizen can. Unfortunately, the movie studios also weird more financial power (and more political power, I'll wager) then nearly any other organization in the US. Never underestimate the power of Holleywood. :)
See, I believe this statement is somewhat misleading. You are legally allowed to view it under any conditions you want, as long as, again, you don't violate copyright law. Now it just so happens that the only way to view DVDs is through players that had licensed with the CCA, and breaking that encryption is illegal. But that's different. If the DVD-CCA could legally enforce what circumstances you watch DVDs on, they wouldn't even need to bother with encryption. The ban against breaking encryption gives them a roundabout way to get what they want, but it's still not the same as legally obligating someone to only view in a certain manner. The end result is pretty much the same, true, but what the law allows and disallows is different between those two cases.
In fact, I believe you are actually allowed to develop some type of CSS-DVD-player, but it's the actual distribution of such tools that is illegal. I haven't actually looked into this though, so I might just be repeating SlashDot rumor (ie, talking out of my ass).
Okay, here's one from the MPAA: select the FAQ
Mmmmm. Generally I've found that if you're asking if a license is legally enforcable, the person wishing to enforce the license is generally not the best person to ask. It's like asking the tobacco companies if cigarettes are really all that dangerous. The answer you get might not really be all that close to truth, and the people giving the answers will often let opinions masquerade as fact. There is no agreement between DVD buyer and seller. There is only copyright law. That is why charging "friends" to view the DVD you bought is illegal -- because it's against copyright law, not because it's against any type of license. Of course, the license is often going to reflect and reprint copyright law, which makes those parts of the license legally enforcable. But again, that's only because it's already against the law.
You came so very close to stabbing right where the center of the issue is. My big question is: why should people who want to watch DVDs be forced to view it under the MPAA's terms? Why can't they view it any way they want as long as it doesn't break regular copyright law? What gives the MPAA the authority to decide how I watch DVDs? I bought the DVDs. I didn't buy a "license to watch it based on their terms." I bought a DVD to do with as I wish, as long as I didn't distribute copies.
I would say that in a public library-type setting, this is not censorware's biggest purpose. The purpose is not to completely block anything someone might find objectionable, but to absolve the institution from lawsuits.