And waste the court's time with irrelevant and silly cases. I mean come on, what's the point?
While we may be heading in to a world where protecting free speech may become irrelevant and silly I still hold hope that the effort is not yet a waste of time.
Yeah, just keep in mind that when that same government is mugging you for crappy things like Socialist Security et al., those thuggings are somehow OK.
Because CNN said so.
Actually Social Security began long before CNN was even a gleam in Ted's eye in an attempt to keep the millions of hopeless people from "thugging" the rich at a time when pure capitalism proved to be a great failure.
..that one day, our Congress will rise up and force the **AAs to give back the money they extorted from every single file sharer, all 50,000 or so who were ever sued.
Since the RIAA has Congress so firmly in their pockets I believe we will have to bypass it altogether.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
The second method is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
My suggestion would be for an amendment that would be worded along the lines of "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free sharing of information among the people."
No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties.
No true rightist/conservative/facist believes that all men are created equal. They pay lip service to everyone competing on level playing fields but in the end all right theory boils down to those not born with a silver spoon in their mouths existing only to feed the rich.
You really can't have civil liberties as we commonly understand them when there are people who are denied even such basic human needs as education and health care because their family incomes are below a certain level. You can't really have the right to free speech when you can't even afford a printing press or to access other mass communication media.
Certainly this new French law suppresses knowledge, but suppressing knowledge is a tool that has been used since the beginning of time to keep those with power in power.
The hatred for the RIAA here is well-established. Out of genuine curiosity, what do Slashdotters think artists and others who work in the music industry should do to protect themselves from piracy?
First off let us be clear...it is not the artists who are hurt by filesharing....it is the music publishers. The 99% of artists who have not been signed to a profitable music industry contract stand to lose nothing by the free sharing of their music.
There is only one form of legislative act that will correct the problems with the DMCA. It would read roughly as follows:
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
No, the only near surefire way would be a grassroots Constitutional amendment. Something along the lines of "Congress shall pass no law restricting the free sharing of information among the people" should do it. The "copyright" clause would still stand to prevent commercial exploitation of writers and inventors.
So does anyone know if Vista is compatable with the current version of VMware or maybe Xen? I don't have a dedicated Windows machine but I do like to keep images of various OSs around for support/testing purposes.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC
*4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM
*4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE
*6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
No, they do not. By virtue of a grant graciously given to them by the people through their representatives they have a monopoly to copy the software for a limited time, but they certainly don't own it.
Yeah right. I want to spend my time and CPU cycles exporting my video to different formats, then the money to host 3 or 4 versions of the same damn video on my website.
You don't need to host various versions of the video, players such VLC can play just about anything you throw at them.
Now grampa can watch videos of his grandson without me explaining the finer points of choosing a media player.
Being a grandfather myself I can tell you we are not dummies, and I have even converted my parents to Linux.
Yes that's right at 3 years old he has his own PC, it runs Edubuntu, and he can point and click.
Of course he can...all my grandkids learned to point and click by the time they were two or so.
Flash is REALLY useful. I stream my music and video across the net using flash. I know that any machine (Windows/OSX/Linux) that has flash player installed can stream my media.
Why not offer your users the option to simply download your material and let them use the player of their choosing?
Until there is a decent replacement that is just as light, Flash is here to stay.
There is no way that flash is lighter than a link to a file.
Having moved totally to Linux about three years I can only go by what I've read, but my understanding is that Microsoft said that it couldn't be completely removed because it was a core part of the operating system...and if it is not why would they automatically update it to IE7?
Considering one comes pre-installed and is unremovable while the other requires users to make an effort to download and install I'd say yes, it is one "hella" match.
I just tested it out on my amd64 system using the nspluginwrapper and it seems to work fine. I didn't use the installer-script though, just untarred and copied libflashplayer.so and flashplayer.xpt to/opt/netscape/plugins.
"Since copyright is automatic you have to assume the material can not be distributed." Not True. Because it is being published on a p2p network designed to distribute digital content, which IS inherently copyrighted, you must assume the material CAN be distrubuted. If you wish to point fingers, point them at the person originating the torrent, as they are the ones adding it to the system.
When are people going to realize that downloading copyrighted material is NOT illegal(hence you would be guilty simply viewing this website with my copyrighted post on it)?
-Copyright 2007 Lance Gonser
You did note that I used the word distributed, did you not? Because of the way most p2p systems work you are uploading when you are downloading.
HOWEVER, how is the downloader supposed to know that they aren't authorized to distribute? The answer is: they can't, until they download the entire file, and then see a distribution notice on the video. Thus, if they are sharing only WHILE they are downloading (before finished), they have no knowing that the material can't be distributed.
Since copyright is automatic you have to assume the material can not be distributed. Though there are many things about current copyright law that are bad, this part is the worst. Before the US joined the Berne Convention the default state of new works was public domain. Protection was only granted if it was requested, which was a much more sensible state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? What's wrong with buying CD's just like he used to?
Sure there are discs that are copy-protected and can give you trouble but the vast majority isn't, especially on non-mainstream music.
It only takes one to place a rootkit on your computer so it's better to avoid them all.
I think he is saying he just wants them to perform and leave the recording and distribution to the people.
And waste the court's time with irrelevant and silly cases. I mean come on, what's the point?
While we may be heading in to a world where protecting free speech may become irrelevant and silly I still hold hope that the effort is not yet a waste of time.
But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?
No, she was exercising fair use rights to educate people about misuse of the DMCA.
Yeah, just keep in mind that when that same government is mugging you for crappy things like Socialist Security et al., those thuggings are somehow OK.
Because CNN said so.
Actually Social Security began long before CNN was even a gleam in Ted's eye in an attempt to keep the millions of hopeless people from "thugging" the rich at a time when pure capitalism proved to be a great failure.
Since the RIAA has Congress so firmly in their pockets I believe we will have to bypass it altogether.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
The second method is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
My suggestion would be for an amendment that would be worded along the lines of "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free sharing of information among the people."
said by someone whose IP is not infringed every few seconds
Or someone who values free speech over profits.
I guess I was like you when I was younger. Today, I don't want to do *any* tweaking at all, save maybe changing the KDE theme.
See, now I'm the opposite. I'm nearing 50 and I find tweaking and tinkering with software much more interesting than planting petunias.
No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties.
No true rightist/conservative/facist believes that all men are created equal. They pay lip service to everyone competing on level playing fields but in the end all right theory boils down to those not born with a silver spoon in their mouths existing only to feed the rich.
You really can't have civil liberties as we commonly understand them when there are people who are denied even such basic human needs as education and health care because their family incomes are below a certain level. You can't really have the right to free speech when you can't even afford a printing press or to access other mass communication media.
Certainly this new French law suppresses knowledge, but suppressing knowledge is a tool that has been used since the beginning of time to keep those with power in power.
The hatred for the RIAA here is well-established. Out of genuine curiosity, what do Slashdotters think artists and others who work in the music industry should do to protect themselves from piracy?
First off let us be clear...it is not the artists who are hurt by filesharing....it is the music publishers. The 99% of artists who have not been signed to a profitable music industry contract stand to lose nothing by the free sharing of their music.
Why would there still be anything "commercial" once we can all share?
Why wouldn't there be? People pay for many things that they could have or do for free if they find it convenient or valuable to do so.
There is only one form of legislative act that will correct the problems with the DMCA. It would read roughly as follows:
"Section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is hereby repealed."
No, the only near surefire way would be a grassroots Constitutional amendment. Something along the lines of "Congress shall pass no law restricting the free sharing of information among the people" should do it. The "copyright" clause would still stand to prevent commercial exploitation of writers and inventors.
Hmmm... no mention whether Vista or other Microsoft operating systems will come under fire of the same arguement.
I doubt it. Microsoft has made it pretty clear that their software will be monitoring and controlling its users activities.
So does anyone know if Vista is compatable with the current version of VMware or maybe Xen? I don't have a dedicated Windows machine but I do like to keep images of various OSs around for support/testing purposes.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC
*4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM
*4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE
*6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
Microsoft owns the software.
No, they do not. By virtue of a grant graciously given to them by the people through their representatives they have a monopoly to copy the software for a limited time, but they certainly don't own it.
Yeah right. I want to spend my time and CPU cycles exporting my video to different formats, then the money to host 3 or 4 versions of the same damn video on my website.
You don't need to host various versions of the video, players such VLC can play just about anything you throw at them.
Now grampa can watch videos of his grandson without me explaining the finer points of choosing a media player.
Being a grandfather myself I can tell you we are not dummies, and I have even converted my parents to Linux.
Yes that's right at 3 years old he has his own PC, it runs Edubuntu, and he can point and click.
Of course he can...all my grandkids learned to point and click by the time they were two or so.
Flash is REALLY useful. I stream my music and video across the net using flash. I know that any machine (Windows/OSX/Linux) that has flash player installed can stream my media.
Why not offer your users the option to simply download your material and let them use the player of their choosing?
Until there is a decent replacement that is just as light, Flash is here to stay.
There is no way that flash is lighter than a link to a file.
Having moved totally to Linux about three years I can only go by what I've read, but my understanding is that Microsoft said that it couldn't be completely removed because it was a core part of the operating system...and if it is not why would they automatically update it to IE7?
14% vs 80%... ya, that's one hella of a match.
Considering one comes pre-installed and is unremovable while the other requires users to make an effort to download and install I'd say yes, it is one "hella" match.
I just tested it out on my amd64 system using the nspluginwrapper and it seems to work fine. I didn't use the installer-script though, just untarred and copied libflashplayer.so and flashplayer.xpt to /opt/netscape/plugins.
"Since copyright is automatic you have to assume the material can not be distributed."
Not True. Because it is being published on a p2p network designed to distribute digital content, which IS inherently copyrighted, you must assume the material CAN be distrubuted. If you wish to point fingers, point them at the person originating the torrent, as they are the ones adding it to the system.
When are people going to realize that downloading copyrighted material is NOT illegal(hence you would be guilty simply viewing this website with my copyrighted post on it)?
-Copyright 2007 Lance Gonser
You did note that I used the word distributed, did you not? Because of the way most p2p systems work you are uploading when you are downloading.
HOWEVER, how is the downloader supposed to know that they aren't authorized to distribute? The answer is: they can't, until they download the entire file, and then see a distribution notice on the video. Thus, if they are sharing only WHILE they are downloading (before finished), they have no knowing that the material can't be distributed.
Since copyright is automatic you have to assume the material can not be distributed. Though there are many things about current copyright law that are bad, this part is the worst. Before the US joined the Berne Convention the default state of new works was public domain. Protection was only granted if it was requested, which was a much more sensible state of affairs.
We have to change the way we see economy.
Changing the way we see the economy might be nice in the long run, but the effects of global warming will be appearing in the short term.
But there is no way to do that.
Fifty years ago there was no way to go to the moon, but motivation, research, and yes...money solved that problem.
Actually, that is the only thing we have to do: cut back on CO2 emissions - problem solved.
Not true. While that may buy more time it won't reverse the damage that has already occurred.