Yes, this is a valid concern that copyright law attempts to address. But it is not a justification for Hilary Rosen to claim that she's fighting for the artists. She is after all, the representative of RIAA in the US only. Is she also the representative of say, for example, the Japanese musician's association? Maybe these guys aren't as technophobic as she is?
The thing is that neither artistic expression is not being curtailed! Nobody is saying: let's go shut George Lucas down becuase he offended someone's sensitivities.
It turns out that some people do see racism, and have valid examples from TPM to back that up.
Other people say this is being too sensitive and chose to ignore the point that this is subjective.
So let's just look at the whole issue holistically, and leave it at that.
My concern is this: what is the point of shutting up the sensitive people? If you shut them up, then you run the risk that in the future, some genuinely offensive piece of crap will offend you, and then you will find that you are in very poor copmany. Then you will have to be shut up. That's not freedom of speech!
You answered the question yourself. There is a line somewhere and it is subjective. And some people (apparently rational) are offended - the line was crosssed according to some people. And the way you rationalize this is that these people are "hypersensitive". Why do people not turn that question around and ask themselves first: is it fair to criticize these people as hypersensitive? Why should we live in a such a desensitisized world?
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
The GPL lets you do MORE than any other standard EULA.
One very important point - Using the software is a right that is always granted, whether you choose to accept the GPL or not. So a person can still benefit from using GPLed software, but just cannot modify it and distribute if he does not accept the GPL.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives. Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts. Why did this ever happen?
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
That's the standard answer, and I guess that's the way it should be. But consider what I believe to be a stronger argument: When you buy a copy of RedHat, you are paying RedHat for aggregating Free Software, and packaging it. When you buy it from the store, you are buying convenience. When you download the ISO image, one should pay RedHat for it becuase the did the work of making a distribution. What alternatives would you have if RedHat wasn't around? Either another distribution maker, or you search on the net for all your software.
I think this would actually make the business of selling Linux more palatable for people who wonder what RedHat does that deserves money.
Well that's an excellent attitude, until you realize this: not everyone knows what good experimentation is. In high school, I had a lot of friends who can't do an experiment. They followed the wiring diagram, they followed the setup, but when theings don't turn out as they should be, they are at a loss to describe what is wrong. Some did learn and some didn't.
The point is that there is very little to learn from the naive. This sounds elite, but it really isn't.
That's fine, but theories are our BEST GUESSES of how the universe works. If there really is a better law, please publish it, and let others be the judge.
Re:Hello? Fermi Paradox!
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 2
You do realize that the universe that we observe is IN THE PAST, don't you? You do realize the speed of light limitations right? You do realize just how much power a civilization must put out, to enable us to detect them right?
All these considerations make Fermi's conclusions less compelling. Be aware of the effect of anticorrelating variables.
Is the wind you are experiencing turning into a full force gale, or will do nothing but stroke the green grass of the fields?
There is an old Chinese saying: bend as the wind blows. If the trend is the service insutry as it were, why is the RIAA "fighting the future". If they were publicly held company, I'll sell their stock right away.
Good comment. It is true that licenses can become needlessly complicated, and they need not be.
However, with proprietry software, the tendency is to make the licenses as complicated as possible, so as to make it hard for one's competitors. In a 80% free software world, things would go other other way, you would see much less convoluted licensing (maybe just the GPL, BSD, plus say n (
Everything you said is true and I wholeheartedly agree. But the point must be made: when it comes down to moral arguments, it is a very usual technique to use words to attempt to confuse the argument.
No doubt, people use the word piracy to refer to copyright violations, and that is simply a linguistic use of one word by the other. But the EMOTIONAL effect of this usage is to make unsubtle and unobjective minds equate copyright violations with robbery in the high seas. To those to know how to think clearly, YOUR ARGUMENT is irrelevant. It is a political ploy used to cause confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this is a valid concern that copyright law attempts to address. But it is not a justification for Hilary Rosen to claim that she's fighting for the artists. She is after all, the representative of
RIAA in the US only. Is she also the representative of say, for example, the Japanese musician's association? Maybe these guys aren't as technophobic as she is?
It turns out that some people do see racism, and have valid examples from TPM to back that up.
Other people say this is being too sensitive and chose to ignore the point that this is subjective.
So let's just look at the whole issue holistically, and leave it at that.
My concern is this: what is the point of shutting up the sensitive people? If you shut them up, then you run the risk that in the future, some genuinely offensive piece of crap will offend you, and then you will find that you are in very poor copmany. Then you will have to be shut up. That's not freedom of speech!
You answered the question yourself. There is a line somewhere and it is subjective. And some people (apparently rational) are offended - the line was crosssed according to some people. And the way you rationalize this is that these people are "hypersensitive". Why do people not turn that question around and ask themselves first: is it fair to criticize these people as hypersensitive? Why should we live in a such a desensitisized world?
One very important point - Using the software is a right that is always granted, whether you choose to accept the GPL or not. So a person can still benefit from using GPLed software, but just cannot modify it and distribute if he does not accept the GPL.
This preserves the original spirit of copyright law, which is to limit only distribution of a work or its derivatives. Unlike MS and many other software companies, the FSF did not join in the software land-grab. MS and others have reinterpreted copyright to include usage terms, and this has been upheld by the courts. Why did this ever happen?
I think this would actually make the business of selling Linux more palatable for people who wonder what RedHat does that deserves money.
And then some idiot decides to run the game on tty01 and everyone gets busted! Damn!
Boss: Hey, Jeff, Let me use your computer for an email - I left my laptop back in HQ.
Jeff the sys-admin: Ehhh
Boss (sitting down): Sorry to stop your working.
Jeff (smiling ironically): No problem.
Boss: What is this - Quarterly Expense Reports. Why would a Sys-Admin like you have anything to do with Quarterly Expense Reports?
Jeff: Errrr
Boss: Come to think of it - I thought Accounting was still preparing them in confidentiality.
Jeff: Errr
.
Boss: What's the meaning of this? You must that corporate spy from our rivals, MeAc Corp!
Jeff: Nononono
Boss: You're fired!
The point is that there is very little to learn from the naive. This sounds elite, but it really isn't.
Why is this even an argument? If someone says "therapy X does not work", why is "there is a lot of good stuff out there" a counter-argument?
That's fine, but theories are our BEST GUESSES of how the universe works. If there really is a better law, please publish it, and let others be the judge.
What is the idea of homeopathic medicine?
All these considerations make Fermi's conclusions less compelling. Be aware of the effect of anticorrelating variables.
It's called evidence. The evidence before that is just good not enough, although there are reasons to believe such ancient civilizations did exist.
And this is good how?
That largely depnds on how well founded that moral view is. Please backup your moral views with moral arguments, so we can actually judge them.
That was an example of egregious licensing. That is comes from MS is incidental to the point that proprietry software could be a licencing hell.
Here's another question: why jobs?
That's all fine and good. So explain to me how that MS licensing agreeement is necessarily complicated.
There is an old Chinese saying: bend as the wind blows. If the trend is the service insutry as it were, why is the RIAA "fighting the future". If they were publicly held company, I'll sell their stock right away.
A really insightful thing would be e^{i \theta} = \cos \theta + i \sin \theta. But I guess this aint News for Nerds anymore.
However, with proprietry software, the tendency is to make the licenses as complicated as possible, so as to make it hard for one's competitors. In a 80% free software world, things would go other other way, you would see much less convoluted licensing (maybe just the GPL, BSD, plus say n (
Fantasy belief of yours: All unix programmers are alike. They are all communist, freedom-loving, bearded and unmarried pinkos!
Which newsletter is it you subcribe to, and how may I subscribe, so that I too, may know the future?
No doubt, people use the word piracy to refer to copyright violations, and that is simply a linguistic use of one word by the other. But the EMOTIONAL effect of this usage is to make unsubtle and unobjective minds equate copyright violations with robbery in the high seas. To those to know how to think clearly, YOUR ARGUMENT is irrelevant. It is a political ploy used to cause confusion.
Why does one have to draw a line between micro and macro?