This isn't all that funny. I'd even say it's serious. While the consequences in this case are little more than a strange and perhaps unexpected selection of programming, consider the consequences if say, lyin' Johnny (Poindexter) and a huge government bureaucracy drew some equally bizarre conclusions based on what you've bought, what you've watched on TV, or how frequently you've visited a certain establishment, or where you've traveled. I hope the 'suspicious' person is still laughing as they're being carted off to a Q&A session with a couple of HomeSec droids. While coercing Tivo to modify it's behavior is but a minor annoyance, I can't help but think that we're about the see the very real danger in allowing others to acquire the means to draw completely inaccurate conclusions about who we are and what we're doing.
Red Hat 8.0 has made a lot of progress with attractive fonts and icons, and a moderate level of consistency. Unfortunately there is far to much copying of MS paradigms
For now, this is exactly what is needed in order to get people to consider alternatives to Windows. The less of a problem that switching becomes, the more likely it is to be a viable option.
While I'd argue that a phone line is probably a necessity, high-speed access is not. Nor are CDs, DVDs, or video rentals. These are all choices people make on a daily basis, by those who are either oblivious to the onslaught of legislation that is eating away at their rights as consumers, or who simply don't care enough.
Simple self-discipline will go a long way...give up some short-term convenience in order to accomplish a long-term objective. If consumers stop paying the RIAA and MPAA to lobby for both the rediculous laws and the arcane technology 'solutions' they're proposing, chances are, they'll stop doing it.
I saw this in a recent issue of Wired magazine:
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation-- Analog to digital converters. For years, the tech savvy have laughed at digital rights management on the theory that no potection could stop you from putting a microphone in front of a speaker. Well, what if every A/D converter incorporated lockware that prevents unauthorized digital recording? The MPAA has proosed this as their preferred fix for the "analog hole." It's the next stoin th emarch to Senator Hollings' Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Acts dystopic, where all digital technology is redisigned by the Feds to Hollywood's specs.
This is serious business. How much more of this are people going to tolerate? The point is that we don't have to buy this stuff. All we as consumers have to do is tell the RIAA/MPAA to keep their 'content', and we'll look/wait for an alternative.
C++ source that uses templates would take forEVER on a slow machine. Well, it already takes forever on a fast machine....hmmmmm...what comes after 'forever'?
After reviewing your letter, something dawned on me. You can keep your media, your $25.95, and your humble $95 billion company. I want no part of it. I will immediately cease purchasing any products from Sony or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. You see, I figure that there is at least one enlightened competitor in the marketplace that can offer a reasonably-priced product with a reasonably fair licensing policy, and it is this competitor that will gain my loyalty as a consumer. While it's obvious that you see customers as a right, and not a valued resource, hopefully my actions will serve as a reminder that this reasoning is seriously flawed. Your competitor may offer a more limited selection, but I value my freedom far more than I value your product.
And I just cancelled my MCI account but a few days ago. Then of course, Qwest did their part by trying to sell me some wireless service, but they're next. Now I only need to find a good, more inexpensive, more ethical alternative without the executive-level incompetence. Oh...and get this...I get to pay a fee for the privilege of having someone type in an account number and whatever the "cancel" command is. And to make it even worse, I get to pay the fee again if and when I decide on another long distance service.
So how does this apply the willful and knowing acquisition of copyrighted material without the owners' permission? It's not like you just happened to be sitting next to someone the bus playing your favorite song on an iPod. The way it happens in most circumstances is that someone engages in a directed effort to specifically acquire the material in question, knowing full well that they have no intention of paying for it. Is *this* theft? If not, what is it?
People who are creative have every right to maximize their return, just as any other entity with a potential for gain in a free market. I think what Congress has done to our system of copyright, however, is repugnant, as it is allowing exactly what its framers wanted to avoid.
I say we return the copyright to its original form - a creator holds a right for a specified period and no longer. Disney can go suck eggs.
"TAKE" != "COPY". I shouldn't have to explain any further than that.
You're suggesting that you can only "take" something that manifests itself in a physical sense. This can't be right, since theft of service (a non-physical entity) is a very legitimate concept within existing law. When you copy something(as in the case of copyrighted material), you are acquiring something of value without either permission or intent to compensate its owner. You don't have a physical object, but you do receive benefit from what it is that you've acquired. If this isn't theft, then what would you call it? Whether you call it taking or copying is just a matter of semantics.
Please help me understand how this relates my comments.
I'm sure there is no end to the number of exceptions and unusual situations people can dream up (mostly absurdity that supposes a lack of common sense) to help them rationalize bad behavior.
I'm sorry to say, but keeping a jacket after engaging in a good faith effort to find its rightful owner has nothing to do with the willful acquisition of copyrighted material with no intent to seek permission or provide compensation in accordance with the owner's offer.
To reiterate: I advertise something of value at a given price. If you decide you want it, you pay for it. If you reject my offer but TAKE my goods anyway (medium notwithstanding), how is that NOT theft?
If I offer you the opportunity to enjoy something I've created for a certain price, it is incumbent upon you to decide if you're going to accept or refuse my offer. If you accept it, you provide the requested compensation, and enjoy what I'm offering with my blessing. If you refuse the offer, you have no further claim, and most certainly, you have no right to acquire it. What is it then, if you decide to acquire it anyway, and deprive me of due compensation?
Theft: unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another
It has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything. It has to do with whether or not you have it (or use it), and (with respect to your argument) whether or not you've paid for it according to the terms set by its owner.
Which argument is covered completely under "copyright violation" since 'value' is an abstract and "theft" deals in tangibles.
Theft deals with whatever the law says it deals with. In its most abstract sense, theft is the unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another without permission and/or compensation. Consider theft of service - nothing tangible, but the "service" does have value, and is being paid for by someone else who is entitled to its use. If you acquire the benefit of said service without permission or compensation, it is theft.
Re:When good credit may not mean "good"
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
Hmmmm...are you telling me that credit companies evaluate an applicant's prospective 'benefit' by how much they're likely to make from the fees they charge vendors? Not likely.
Re:When good credit may not mean "good"
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
If you're not paying interest, you're dead weight. You may have an excellent payment history, but as a financial institution who is seeking to maximize revenue, people who aren't paying interest (and various fees), aren't contributing to the bottom line.
Have you looked at your credit score?
Re:"Fees" by any other name...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
...especially when they're levied by the government, are TAXES. Anyone in the U.S. can check their phone bill to see what I mean...or their annual assessment for vehicle ownership fees (well there is a tax in there, but in my case, the processing fee is about 33% of the total.
It's a "will consumers ever grow a spine and tell Microsoft to take a flying leap" issue. I realize the alternatives may entail an initial cost outlay over and above the current licensing (for businesses, anyway), but it is my opinion that this will yield significant benefits over the long term. I personally wouldn't mind seeing Bill Gates in a position where he's asking what Microsoft can do to be of greater value to consumers, and hopefully stay in business. But until the spine issue is resolved, this will remain little more than wishful thinking.
The graphics toast my GeForce 4 Ti 4200, the talking to the other players feature is amazing (finally some REAL socializing in a game), and I have yet to see any lag whatsoever.
Socializing? If it's the same kind of chatter I see on America's Army (only voice), I'd say it's more anti socializing.
Right. Where liberty and the propensity for government abuse are concerned (the U.S. has a very rich history of such abuse), might help doesn't cut it.
What the average American doesn't realize is that of all the alleged terrorist attacks that have been thwarted, none of these efforts relied on any of the proposed technology, the newly-created Office of Information Awareness (to be headed up by a convicted felon, no less), nor did it rely on the abrogation of liberty as American citizens. Although people like Ashcruft, Bush, and North might be foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to gain such a significant amount of control over the lives of American citizens, few people seem willing to ask a very important question: How much of this is necessary?
Aside from questions of necessity, any system is only as strong as its weakest link. Imagine the kinds of problems that can surface with access to critical parts of the system...say, a stack of blank birth certificates, the machines used to produce such documents, or a clerk, interested in making a few extra bucks by providing false - yet certifiable - documents to someone.
And one question I've never seen asked yet - what happens when the data being housed by the Office of Information Awareness is wrong? What oversight exists to make sure the data are accurate, and to ensure that any inaccurate data will be corrected? Those who who have had the misfortune of dealing with any of the major credit reporting agencies know the futility involved in this process. If people think we have problems now...just wait. "Security" could become our biggest nightmare.
I'll take NYC regulations against anarchic non regulated commerce. It's not that I advocate monopolistic activietes, but without smart and enforced commerce regulations and city ordinances, things can become anarchic quite easily.
Sorry, but for a minute there, I thought you said smart. Oh...you did.
We already know what happened. Based on testimony from the portion of the investigation that did take place, it seemed clear that certain federal agencies screwed up. That's actually putting it mildly, considering that the 9/11 attack was merely a culmination of several years worth of terrorist acts that were Bin Laden's doing. The real problem is that the public at large just doesn't seem to understand the difference between an effective solution, and a bunch of abusive legislation masquerading as a solution.
...what comes with it? In order to install said 'security fixes,' will it entail agreeing to one of Microsoft's newer, more arcane licensing policies? No thanks. I'm not sure where the value lies in trading one form of inanity for another.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot dragged itself into the year 2002 by providing the ability to edit comments after they've been submitted, but that ain't gonna happen either.
This isn't all that funny. I'd even say it's serious. While the consequences in this case are little more than a strange and perhaps unexpected selection of programming, consider the consequences if say, lyin' Johnny (Poindexter) and a huge government bureaucracy drew some equally bizarre conclusions based on what you've bought, what you've watched on TV, or how frequently you've visited a certain establishment, or where you've traveled. I hope the 'suspicious' person is still laughing as they're being carted off to a Q&A session with a couple of HomeSec droids. While coercing Tivo to modify it's behavior is but a minor annoyance, I can't help but think that we're about the see the very real danger in allowing others to acquire the means to draw completely inaccurate conclusions about who we are and what we're doing.
Red Hat 8.0 has made a lot of progress with attractive fonts and icons, and a moderate level of consistency. Unfortunately there is far to much copying of MS paradigms
For now, this is exactly what is needed in order to get people to consider alternatives to Windows. The less of a problem that switching becomes, the more likely it is to be a viable option.
While I'd argue that a phone line is probably a necessity, high-speed access is not. Nor are CDs, DVDs, or video rentals. These are all choices people make on a daily basis, by those who are either oblivious to the onslaught of legislation that is eating away at their rights as consumers, or who simply don't care enough.
Simple self-discipline will go a long way...give up some short-term convenience in order to accomplish a long-term objective. If consumers stop paying the RIAA and MPAA to lobby for both the rediculous laws and the arcane technology 'solutions' they're proposing, chances are, they'll stop doing it.
I saw this in a recent issue of Wired magazine:
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation--
Analog to digital converters. For years, the tech savvy have laughed at digital rights management on the theory that no potection could stop you from putting a microphone in front of a speaker. Well, what if every A/D converter incorporated lockware that prevents unauthorized digital recording? The MPAA has proosed this as their preferred fix for the "analog hole." It's the next stoin th emarch to Senator Hollings' Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Acts dystopic, where all digital technology is redisigned by the Feds to Hollywood's specs.
This is serious business. How much more of this are people going to tolerate? The point is that we don't have to buy this stuff. All we as consumers have to do is tell the RIAA/MPAA to keep their 'content', and we'll look/wait for an alternative.
I'm not listening to anything? Will the billboard go blank?
C++ source that uses templates would take forEVER on a slow machine. Well, it already takes forever on a fast machine....hmmmmm...what comes after 'forever'?
After reviewing your letter, something dawned on me. You can keep your media, your $25.95, and your humble $95 billion company. I want no part of it. I will immediately cease purchasing any products from Sony or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. You see, I figure that there is at least one enlightened competitor in the marketplace that can offer a reasonably-priced product with a reasonably fair licensing policy, and it is this competitor that will gain my loyalty as a consumer. While it's obvious that you see customers as a right, and not a valued resource, hopefully my actions will serve as a reminder that this reasoning is seriously flawed. Your competitor may offer a more limited selection, but I value my freedom far more than I value your product.
Sincerely,
John Q. Consumer
And I just cancelled my MCI account but a few days ago. Then of course, Qwest did their part by trying to sell me some wireless service, but they're next. Now I only need to find a good, more inexpensive, more ethical alternative without the executive-level incompetence. Oh...and get this...I get to pay a fee for the privilege of having someone type in an account number and whatever the "cancel" command is. And to make it even worse, I get to pay the fee again if and when I decide on another long distance service.
So how does this apply the willful and knowing acquisition of copyrighted material without the owners' permission? It's not like you just happened to be sitting next to someone the bus playing your favorite song on an iPod. The way it happens in most circumstances is that someone engages in a directed effort to specifically acquire the material in question, knowing full well that they have no intention of paying for it. Is *this* theft? If not, what is it?
People who are creative have every right to maximize their return, just as any other entity with a potential for gain in a free market. I think what Congress has done to our system of copyright, however, is repugnant, as it is allowing exactly what its framers wanted to avoid.
I say we return the copyright to its original form - a creator holds a right for a specified period and no longer. Disney can go suck eggs.
"TAKE" != "COPY". I shouldn't have to explain any further than that.
You're suggesting that you can only "take" something that manifests itself in a physical sense. This can't be right, since theft of service (a non-physical entity) is a very legitimate concept within existing law. When you copy something(as in the case of copyrighted material), you are acquiring something of value without either permission or intent to compensate its owner. You don't have a physical object, but you do receive benefit from what it is that you've acquired. If this isn't theft, then what would you call it? Whether you call it taking or copying is just a matter of semantics.
Please help me understand how this relates my comments.
I'm sure there is no end to the number of exceptions and unusual situations people can dream up (mostly absurdity that supposes a lack of common sense) to help them rationalize bad behavior.
I'm sorry to say, but keeping a jacket after engaging in a good faith effort to find its rightful owner has nothing to do with the willful acquisition of copyrighted material with no intent to seek permission or provide compensation in accordance with the owner's offer.
To reiterate: I advertise something of value at a given price. If you decide you want it, you pay for it. If you reject my offer but TAKE my goods anyway (medium notwithstanding), how is that NOT theft?
If I offer you the opportunity to enjoy something I've created for a certain price, it is incumbent upon you to decide if you're going to accept or refuse my offer. If you accept it, you provide the requested compensation, and enjoy what I'm offering with my blessing. If you refuse the offer, you have no further claim, and most certainly, you have no right to acquire it. What is it then, if you decide to acquire it anyway, and deprive me of due compensation?
Theft: unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another
It has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything. It has to do with whether or not you have it (or use it), and (with respect to your argument) whether or not you've paid for it according to the terms set by its owner.
panel of scholars and computer experts, including Microsoft officials in order to study the use of Open Source software in the government.
On one side you have the scholars and computer experts, and on the other, you have Microsoft.
Which argument is covered completely under "copyright violation" since 'value' is an abstract and "theft" deals in tangibles.
Theft deals with whatever the law says it deals with. In its most abstract sense, theft is the unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another without permission and/or compensation. Consider theft of service - nothing tangible, but the "service" does have value, and is being paid for by someone else who is entitled to its use. If you acquire the benefit of said service without permission or compensation, it is theft.
Hmmmm...are you telling me that credit companies evaluate an applicant's prospective 'benefit' by how much they're likely to make from the fees they charge vendors? Not likely.
If you're not paying interest, you're dead weight. You may have an excellent payment history, but as a financial institution who is seeking to maximize revenue, people who aren't paying interest (and various fees), aren't contributing to the bottom line.
Have you looked at your credit score?
It's a "will consumers ever grow a spine and tell Microsoft to take a flying leap" issue. I realize the alternatives may entail an initial cost outlay over and above the current licensing (for businesses, anyway), but it is my opinion that this will yield significant benefits over the long term. I personally wouldn't mind seeing Bill Gates in a position where he's asking what Microsoft can do to be of greater value to consumers, and hopefully stay in business. But until the spine issue is resolved, this will remain little more than wishful thinking.
The graphics toast my GeForce 4 Ti 4200, the talking to the other players feature is amazing (finally some REAL socializing in a game), and I have yet to see any lag whatsoever.
Socializing? If it's the same kind of chatter I see on America's Army (only voice),
I'd say it's more anti socializing.
might help
Right. Where liberty and the propensity for government abuse are concerned (the U.S. has a very rich history of such abuse), might help doesn't cut it.
What the average American doesn't realize is that of all the alleged terrorist attacks that have been thwarted, none of these efforts relied on any of the proposed technology, the newly-created Office of Information Awareness (to be headed up by a convicted felon, no less), nor did it rely on the abrogation of liberty as American citizens. Although people like Ashcruft, Bush, and North might be foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to gain such a significant amount of control over the lives of American citizens, few people seem willing to ask a very important question: How much of this is necessary?
Aside from questions of necessity, any system is only as strong as its weakest link. Imagine the kinds of problems that can surface with access to critical parts of the system...say, a stack of blank birth certificates, the machines used to produce such documents, or a clerk, interested in making a few extra bucks by providing false - yet certifiable - documents to someone.
And one question I've never seen asked yet - what happens when the data being housed by the Office of Information Awareness is wrong? What oversight exists to make sure the data are accurate, and to ensure that any inaccurate data will be corrected? Those who who have had the misfortune of dealing with any of the major credit reporting agencies know the futility involved in this process. If people think we have problems now...just wait. "Security" could become our biggest nightmare.
I'll take NYC regulations against anarchic non regulated commerce. It's not that I advocate monopolistic activietes, but without smart and enforced commerce regulations and city ordinances, things can become anarchic quite easily.
Sorry, but for a minute there, I thought you said smart. Oh...you did.
We already know what happened. Based on testimony from the portion of the investigation that did take place, it seemed clear that certain federal agencies screwed up. That's actually putting it mildly, considering that the 9/11 attack was merely a culmination of several years worth of terrorist acts that were Bin Laden's doing. The real problem is that the public at large just doesn't seem to understand the difference between an effective solution, and a bunch of abusive legislation masquerading as a solution.