Perhaps the best thing the Pirate Party could do is try to fuel a grassroots compaign for a Constitutional Amendment that sets in stone the fourteen year terms and registration requirements of the original US copyright laws so that Congress can't use the "harmonizing" excuse anymore. This of course would have to be done by the states themselves since the **AAs and gerrymandering have pretty much ensured that Congress itself would not introduce the necessary legislation.
The entire premise is flawed because there is no such thing as overly hygienic.
No, the premise is not flawed. Antibodies are produced in response to a threat so if there is no threat there are no antibodies. That is why vaccines work by introducing a small amount of threat to your body.
Sure, if you grow up in a sealed bubble, you will likely lack antibodies for certain things. However, you will have antibodies passed onto you from your mother.
If your mother was raised in the same sealed bubble as you she wouldn't develop antibodies to pass onto you.
We already know that every living thing develops certain immunities/resistance in specific environments. People in certain countries develop resistance to many indigenous parasites, while vistors become seriously ill.
If I do get sick, at least I'll live. More people die in developing countries from things we can easily remedy than the other way around.
It depends on what pathogen infects you as to whether or not you will live. Due to the overuse of antibiotics we have created "superbugs" such as MRSA and VRE that are beginning to find there way into the general population.
This article is just more anti-western rhetoric suggesting that the west would be better off if we were dirtier and that we should apologize for being better off than someone else. We've already gone through our development and I'm thankful to have benefitted from it.
The article isn't anti-western, it's anti-shortsightedness. What benefits you today may not benefit the generations that follow you tomorrow.
There's a reason we've "never heard of" this bill: it's not trying to do any of the evil things the submitter or TFA say it is. Yes, it may suck in other ways and probably does, like pretty much any proposed law will in some respect or another. But it's not trying to enforce separate licenses for cached, buffered, and incidental copies of digital works; it's trying to eliminate all of the ridiculousness with regard to that and allow one license to cover all of the incidental copies that might pop up in digital distribution. It sure would be nice if people actually read it.
The bill mandates a new license to cover buffering and caching which clearly are fair uses of copyrighted material.
Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The same section also states that Congress has the power to declare war. That doesn't mean they have to.
That's really not your best possible argument here...
Whether the argument is good or not is irrelevant, I am only stating the reality of the situation.
For example, I drive a pretty nice car, an Audi. If I was to sell it, it wouldn't be cheap. However, there are people out there that would like to drive an Audi, but do not want to pay the amount of money that they cost. Should I be required to sell my car to them for a lower price than I wish simply because other people don't want to pay the amount of money that I would be willing to sell at?
No, you aren't required to sell your car for anything less than your price. Those who want an Audi for less will go find one that is priced lower.
We aren't talking about air, water or food here... You don't need an MP3 to survive, so if the MPAA and the recording artists want to price their product out of the range where people are willing to buy, then it is up to them.
You are right, we aren't talking about food and water here. We are talking about bits and electrons though which are infinitely more abundant resources. If the MPAA refuses to sell those bits and electrons at a price people are willing to pay, people will find them elslewhere.
Don't buy their product.
Isn't the problem that people aren't buying their product?
I agree that most people who just go and borrow a friend's CD and rip it to their iPod aren't trying to do damage to the recording artists. However, many of those recording artists have decided that it does damage them when someone uses P2P or other "sharing" software to distribute free copies of these artists work over the internet.
Many of the people sharing files have decided that it does them damage not to be able to share whatever of their culture that they see fit over the internet.
Seriously people, how many of you walk into a WalMart, grab a handful of stuff and just walk out the door? It isn't your property, and you shouldn't be acting with righteous indignation when the rightful property owner gets upset.
Grabbing handfuls of stuff from Walmart leaves Walmart without that stuff. Artists, on the other hand, would only lose their creation if they lost it in which case I am sure some nice file sharer would be more than happy to provide a copy to replace it.
Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
Because it demonstrates the futility of the **AAs efforts to preserve their current distribution/profit models in a world where there is near universal access to information.
This sort of shit really pisses me off.. why the fuck did China gain admittance into the WTO with this appalling shit going on? They're not even hiding the fact that this is going on..
What would you have China do, send their tanks to round up the millions of people who buy and sell copyrighted material and place them in reeducation camps? They were admitted to the WTO because China is the world's biggest market and intellectual property is not end all of end all of global trade.
Sorry for the profanity, but this really makes me angry..
No reason to apologize, we all get angry. What really ticks me off is the refusal of the content industries to recognize that this is capitalisism in its truest form. If the street price of a DVD in China is a buck then why the aren't they selling their friggin' DVDs to the Chinese for a buck?
If a law is broken that isn't a reason to change it either, else we wouldn't need the Police.
True. It is a matter of degree. You would be hard pressed I think to point out instances where a law that had been nearly universally obeyed was repealed.
Demonstrations are a way of telling the politicians that you want a law abolished.
Most successful demonstrations such as burning bras, making salt, consuming alchohol, keeping your seat on the bus, etc, involve civil disobedience.
Yes, I researched all this back in 2001 after the WTC attacks. My conclusion was, after taking into account that pre-pubescent arranged marraiges were common in many cultures at that time the evidence weighed heavily towards it being true.
Problem is, it comes from a not quaran verse and there are translation issues.
It is a history text written years after mohammed died, so that may make it less "valid" but most sites I read support that mohammed had sex with his nine year old wife. You won't see that on CNN...
Yes, this is the part where critical thinking comes in.
Ah. Well, yea, naturally that solves the problem of specifically adding ~x86 or ~amd64 to each subpackage of X.org 7.0.
It solves the problem of adding keywords for all "~arch" packages. Sure you run into gotchas every now and then but if nobody tests new software then how can it ever become stable?
You just don't get it. Pron is not difficult to find now. What's a lot more difficult (relatively) is filtering it out. If you take all of the existing pron sites and force them to move to.xxx domain, then all you need is one simple rule and your job is done. No constant updating of filters, nothing slipping through the cracks - you're done. That's it - that's all.
Bullshit. The only way you could achieve that kind of filtering is to create a ".safe" domain and prohibit access to everything else.
"7. The definition of what is offensive obviously differs greatly from country to country, from year to year, and from person to person. If bare ankles are considered obscene in some cultures, but are permitted in photos of Web sites in France selling sandals, then individuals wishing to keep photos of bare ankles out of their home using filtering on ".xxx" are unlikely to succeed. How will sites about safe sex or AIDS be treated? Who will establish what is art and what is pornography?"
Also, having read these documents it appears to me that this whole thing is nothing but a land grab by ICM.
I'm not saying this would really solve any problems(I think most sites would buy a.XXX in addition to a.com), but how is this really any different than zoning laws? We pretty much tell adult store where they can and can't have a store? I know it varies with local regulation, but the idea is still the same.
The.xxx domain allows the pornography to be easily found by those who want to find it, and avoided by those who don't want to see it.
It would do nothing of the sort unless sites defined as porn were forced into the.xxx domain.
Isn't this akin to the adult books at a bookstore being in their own section, available but only accessible to those who meet the age requirement? Where's the harm in that?
No, it is nothing like zoning laws because the internet is not local. There is no international definition of what is obscene.
The fact that this issue is so polarizing, like abortion, shows that the arguments are more driven by belief than actual cold, hard thought.
Actual cold, hard thought tells me that it would be much more effective for those who want to be censored to censor themselves.
Sounds like a typical day on Slashdot... but seriously, everyone's so concerned about the problem of pornography and had to limit access to it, and yet here is an attractive solution, with very little downside, and of course the fanatics are opposed.
Actually there are many of us who are more concerned about free speech and access to information than the "problem" of pornography who are opposed to the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Eric Raymond mind if I take The Cathedral and the Bazaar and sanitize it for people that don't like open source?
The Cathedral and the Bazaar
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Open Publication License, version 2.0."
Perhaps the best thing the Pirate Party could do is try to fuel a grassroots compaign for a Constitutional Amendment that sets in stone the fourteen year terms and registration requirements of the original US copyright laws so that Congress can't use the "harmonizing" excuse anymore. This of course would have to be done by the states themselves since the **AAs and gerrymandering have pretty much ensured that Congress itself would not introduce the necessary legislation.
The entire premise is flawed because there is no such thing as overly hygienic.
No, the premise is not flawed. Antibodies are produced in response to a threat so if there is no threat there are no antibodies. That is why vaccines work by introducing a small amount of threat to your body.
Sure, if you grow up in a sealed bubble, you will likely lack antibodies for certain things. However, you will have antibodies passed onto you from your mother.
If your mother was raised in the same sealed bubble as you she wouldn't develop antibodies to pass onto you.
We already know that every living thing develops certain immunities/resistance in specific environments. People in certain countries develop resistance to many indigenous parasites, while vistors become seriously ill.
If I do get sick, at least I'll live. More people die in developing countries from things we can easily remedy than the other way around.
It depends on what pathogen infects you as to whether or not you will live. Due to the overuse of antibiotics we have created "superbugs" such as MRSA and VRE that are beginning to find there way into the general population.
This article is just more anti-western rhetoric suggesting that the west would be better off if we were dirtier and that we should apologize for being better off than someone else. We've already gone through our development and I'm thankful to have benefitted from it.
The article isn't anti-western, it's anti-shortsightedness. What benefits you today may not benefit the generations that follow you tomorrow.
That's the fun thing about democracies; they tend to need to cater to the most people possible; and most people are unbelievably stupid.
No, most people aren't unbelievably stupid. It's just that we are all incredibly ignorant about things that don't interest us.
There's a reason we've "never heard of" this bill: it's not trying to do any of the evil things the submitter or TFA say it is. Yes, it may suck in other ways and probably does, like pretty much any proposed law will in some respect or another. But it's not trying to enforce separate licenses for cached, buffered, and incidental copies of digital works; it's trying to eliminate all of the ridiculousness with regard to that and allow one license to cover all of the incidental copies that might pop up in digital distribution. It sure would be nice if people actually read it.
The bill mandates a new license to cover buffering and caching which clearly are fair uses of copyrighted material.
Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The same section also states that Congress has the power to declare war. That doesn't mean they have to.
That's really not your best possible argument here...
Whether the argument is good or not is irrelevant, I am only stating the reality of the situation.
For example, I drive a pretty nice car, an Audi. If I was to sell it, it wouldn't be cheap. However, there are people out there that would like to drive an Audi, but do not want to pay the amount of money that they cost. Should I be required to sell my car to them for a lower price than I wish simply because other people don't want to pay the amount of money that I would be willing to sell at?
No, you aren't required to sell your car for anything less than your price. Those who want an Audi for less will go find one that is priced lower.
We aren't talking about air, water or food here... You don't need an MP3 to survive, so if the MPAA and the recording artists want to price their product out of the range where people are willing to buy, then it is up to them.
You are right, we aren't talking about food and water here. We are talking about bits and electrons though which are infinitely more abundant resources. If the MPAA refuses to sell those bits and electrons at a price people are willing to pay, people will find them elslewhere.
Don't buy their product.
Isn't the problem that people aren't buying their product?
I agree that most people who just go and borrow a friend's CD and rip it to their iPod aren't trying to do damage to the recording artists. However, many of those recording artists have decided that it does damage them when someone uses P2P or other "sharing" software to distribute free copies of these artists work over the internet.
Many of the people sharing files have decided that it does them damage not to be able to share whatever of their culture that they see fit over the internet.
Seriously people, how many of you walk into a WalMart, grab a handful of stuff and just walk out the door? It isn't your property, and you shouldn't be acting with righteous indignation when the rightful property owner gets upset.
Grabbing handfuls of stuff from Walmart leaves Walmart without that stuff. Artists, on the other hand, would only lose their creation if they lost it in which case I am sure some nice file sharer would be more than happy to provide a copy to replace it.
Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?
Because the truth is there are people who want this crap, just not at the price and/or with the conditions that the MPAA imposes.
Sure. And one means of 'aiding the poor' is to murder 'rich people' in the street for their money.
Yes, that is one logical outcome of an unbalanced econonomy. When few are rich and most are poor the poor will steal from the rich.
Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
Because it demonstrates the futility of the **AAs efforts to preserve their current distribution/profit models in a world where there is near universal access to information.
This sort of shit really pisses me off.. why the fuck did China gain admittance into the WTO with this appalling shit going on? They're not even hiding the fact that this is going on..
What would you have China do, send their tanks to round up the millions of people who buy and sell copyrighted material and place them in reeducation camps? They were admitted to the WTO because China is the world's biggest market and intellectual property is not end all of end all of global trade.
Sorry for the profanity, but this really makes me angry..
No reason to apologize, we all get angry. What really ticks me off is the refusal of the content industries to recognize that this is capitalisism in its truest form. If the street price of a DVD in China is a buck then why the aren't they selling their friggin' DVDs to the Chinese for a buck?
If a law is broken that isn't a reason to change it either, else we wouldn't need the Police.
True. It is a matter of degree. You would be hard pressed I think to point out instances where a law that had been nearly universally obeyed was repealed.
Demonstrations are a way of telling the politicians that you want a law abolished.
Most successful demonstrations such as burning bras, making salt, consuming alchohol, keeping your seat on the bus, etc, involve civil disobedience.
Yes, I researched all this back in 2001 after the WTC attacks. My conclusion was, after taking into account that pre-pubescent arranged marraiges were common in many cultures at that time the evidence weighed heavily towards it being true.
Problem is, it comes from a not quaran verse and there are translation issues.
It is a history text written years after mohammed died, so that may make it less "valid" but most sites I read support that mohammed had sex with his nine year old wife. You won't see that on CNN...
Yes, this is the part where critical thinking comes in.
I don't have easy access to the original sources, plus any idiot can print a book hating on anyone.
If you have access to Google you have access to the Quran.
Maybe they are all lies. Maybe the original source books are lies. Whatever. It is out there and may be true. How can you check stuff like that.
You check stuff like that by reading the original sources yourself and applying critical thinking.
"If a law is unjust, then we should break it."
No, if a law is unjust you should change it.
If a law is not being broken there is no reason to change it.
The fewer users who test new software the longer it takes for new software to become stable. It's hard to find bugs if nobody is looking.
Ah. Well, yea, naturally that solves the problem of specifically adding ~x86 or ~amd64 to each subpackage of X.org 7.0.
It solves the problem of adding keywords for all "~arch" packages. Sure you run into gotchas every now and then but if nobody tests new software then how can it ever become stable?
Wait, if you don't even have xorg-x11 in your package.keywords file, wouldn't you get 6.8.2 installed? How'd you manage without that?
All three of my machines have "~amd64" or "~x86" in their make.confs.
Not for a while now:
$ cat package.keywords
~sys-devel/gcc-4.0.2 -*
~sys-libs/glibc-2.3.6 -*
dev-util/motor ~x86
$ equery list -p xorg
[ Searching for package 'xorg' in all categories among: ]
* installed packages
[I--] [ ~] app-doc/xorg-docs-1.1 (0)
[I--] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.0.2-r4 (0)
[I--] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-x11-7.0-r1 (0)
[I--] [ ~] x11-misc/xorg-cf-files-1.0.1-r3 (0)
* Portage tree (/usr/portage)
[-P-] [M ] app-doc/xorg-sgml-doctools-1.0.1 (0)
[-P-] [M~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.0.99.903 (0)
[-P-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-x11-6.8.2-r7 (0)
[-P-] [M~] x11-base/xorg-x11-6.9.0-r1 (0)
[-P-] [M~] x11-base/xorg-x11-7.1_rc2 (0)
You just don't get it. Pron is not difficult to find now. What's a lot more difficult (relatively) is filtering it out. If you take all of the existing pron sites and force them to move to
Bullshit. The only way you could achieve that kind of filtering is to create a ".safe" domain and prohibit access to everything else.
There is a W3C article, Why Using TLDs for Filtering is Ineffective, Harmful, and Unnecessary, that points out all the downfalls of creating a .xxx domain. This excerpt sums up why I am personally opposed to the idea:
"7. The definition of what is offensive obviously differs greatly from country to country, from year to year, and from person to person. If bare ankles are considered obscene in some cultures, but are permitted in photos of Web sites in France selling sandals, then individuals wishing to keep photos of bare ankles out of their home using filtering on ".xxx" are unlikely to succeed. How will sites about safe sex or AIDS be treated? Who will establish what is art and what is pornography?"
Also, having read these documents it appears to me that this whole thing is nothing but a land grab by ICM.
I'm not saying this would really solve any problems(I think most sites would buy a
The difference is the internet is not local.
The
It would do nothing of the sort unless sites defined as porn were forced into the
Isn't this akin to the adult books at a bookstore being in their own section, available but only accessible to those who meet the age requirement? Where's the harm in that?
No, it is nothing like zoning laws because the internet is not local. There is no international definition of what is obscene.
The fact that this issue is so polarizing, like abortion, shows that the arguments are more driven by belief than actual cold, hard thought.
Actual cold, hard thought tells me that it would be much more effective for those who want to be censored to censor themselves.
Sounds like a typical day on Slashdot... but seriously, everyone's so concerned about the problem of pornography and had to limit access to it, and yet here is an attractive solution, with very little downside, and of course the fanatics are opposed.
Actually there are many of us who are more concerned about free speech and access to information than the "problem" of pornography who are opposed to the idea.