Yeah. That was part of the point of the comment. There is a certain amount of irony in people moderating comments like this "troll" and "flamebait", as part of the point is to call out the people who would moderate comments like that "troll" and "flamebait". They are making the comment true and don't even realize it.
I really hate that if I don't want to take a karma hit for comments that are intended to provoke discussion and give some kind of insight, that I have to take off the karma bonus or post anonymously because some people just hate it when light is shone on the problem.
Both wikipedia and slashdot have the same problem. The moderation system is entirely broken. Since the goals of the communities are different, however, it manifests in different ways. It's the same root problem, though. How sad.
...and the person who puts it up for speedy deletion contacts all of his/her friends and has them vote on it, the article gets deleted, and some college student just learned what all his or her hard work is really worth to wikipedia admins.
Don't get me wrong, it is indeed a valuable life lesson. Just one I wish didn't need to be taught.
And when the wikipedia admins come through and start wholesale editing or deleting articles, and then banning them when they try to defend their changes, they will also get a lesson in what happens when online communities start losing track of their core mission and are taken over by people with exaggerated egos and an axe to grind.
Oh, wait. This is slashdot. No one here has any idea what I'm talking about. Nevermind.:)
If not, your opinion is worth just about as much as mine. So please forgive me if I don't particularly concern myself with what you think of my intelligence.
I have had many situations where I have, as an armchair lawyer (as opposed to a real, licensed one), said "Oh, that will never stand up in court". And guess what? It did.
The law is fickle. And I have very little faith in it.
Oh, I quite agree. Copyright law is way too broad and applied way too much against things it really shouldn't be.
But I really don't hold out much hope of that changing anytime soon. The powerful people are too entrenched and many of the judges seem to favor the broadest interpretations of the law possible.
I'm only referring to the way things are, not as they should be. I'm a pragmatist.:-)
Hmm. You know what, after looking a little further, maybe it could withstand a fair use defense. IANAL, so I am not certain. The noncommerciality, the fact that it's a short clip, and the fact that it's only ancilliary to the object of the clip, seem to bear that out. So I'll retract that part of my comment.
But I still think she's going to lose. That just seems to be how it's going with copyright law and the RIAA. The little person doesn't matter.
Sorry, but that's probably what's going to happen.
The fact is, that while it is indeed a derivative work, that is not fair use, and she did use a copyrighted work without authorization. We can argue over and over about whether that law is right, but it is what it is.
Her suing over that is colossally stupid and will likely just end in heartache.
I'm all for taking a rpincipled stand. But you need to make sure you're in the right.
(and because some moderators appear to be on crack based on their moderation of some previous comments, let me say that this is neither intended as a troll or flamebait)
Technology does not feed crime. Technology makes it easier for criminals to do their thing using the new technology for a few years while the law catches up.
Remember, neither lawyers, judges, nor police officers are experts in the Internet, computers, etc., and it takes a while for them to ramp up those skills.
As an aside, I wish they would ramp up on those skills BEFORE making stupid decisions that allow cartels like the RIAA to come to power.
I see the problem with technology as it relates to crime to be instead the fact that to catch criminals who are using technology deliberately designed to cloak them you have to make necessary modifications and allowances to the laws protecting civil liberty. And tampering with those laws at ALL is a bad idea because someone always sticks some shit in the bills that has nothing to do with protecting civil liberty.
That for all of the controls and quality control required of mission critical hardware such as this, it still comes down to:
1) unexpected failure modes 2) political battles
Which really isn't a whole lot different than 1) the unexpected failure modes I see every day at work, and 2) the political wrangling (fingerpointing) that takes place when they happen. Apparently NASA and its Russian equivalent are no better than any old software company.
The lesson being, people are people, and people are still the ones that design these things.
Oh, come on. I disgust you? There are many more things to be disgusted by than this. Such as the *flagrant* attacks on civil liberty coming from this government. This isn't even an attack on civil liberty, it's just a feature that you can opt out of (even if by pulling the fuse to the onstar system) that may make it easier for police to recover your car in the event it's stolen and save a few innocent lives in the process.
Do *you* live in Los Angeles, where you put your life on the line every day from car thieves running down the 405 in stolen vehicles, cutting people off and knocking them out of the way, all the while police following from a safe distance because the road is just too congested to safely PIT them?
And the comparison to Stalin is just a modified invocation of Godwin's law.
I'm sorry to everyone else, it just really bugs me when people compare me to Stalin for having a reasonable opinion.
I'm OK with this. In fact, I wish my car had OnStar with this enabled.
If you are in a car and the police find that there is a reason to stop your car, 9 times out of 10 it is a very good reason. Currently many high speed chases are done with stolen cars, and many times those chases end up with a wrecked car and a trail of destruction stretching many miles. Maybe this wouldn't completely prevent it, but there is legitimate public safety argument in this kind of feature.
Is it hackable? Yeah, of course. But so is the public power grid. There is a certain level of risk that we all have to live with - it's just a part of life. Can it be abused by police? Yeah. But then so can a thousand other things that we live with as well. In my view the benefits to public safety far outweigh the privacy concerns.
Now if onstar could also hold the doors locked and start a fire in the engine compartment, I'd think we have a serious problem.
Did you call them during the day, or in the middle of the night? If you called during the day, they probably just figured *you* are being the agitator. Frankly, I'd probably agree with that. (as long as it wasn't rattling your windows, etc.)
But that does call to mind a good strategy. Rat them out to the RIAA.:P
You are witnessing a practical application of reducto ad absurdum.
The problem is, that kind of exercise is not supposed to have a practical application - it's supposed to be fleshed out before the bill is signed into law.
That's really where the system is breaking down - strong lobbies and stupid lawmakers.
Oddly enough, it is the law. This law may make no sense, but if you want it changed, you have to contect your elected representatives and convince them to change it.
On the flip side, this is what happens when record companies get desperate. That is a good thing, it means they're losing.
I'm all for people getting compensated for their hard work, but by any standard, this is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. That was part of the point of the comment. There is a certain amount of irony in people moderating comments like this "troll" and "flamebait", as part of the point is to call out the people who would moderate comments like that "troll" and "flamebait". They are making the comment true and don't even realize it.
I really hate that if I don't want to take a karma hit for comments that are intended to provoke discussion and give some kind of insight, that I have to take off the karma bonus or post anonymously because some people just hate it when light is shone on the problem.
Both wikipedia and slashdot have the same problem. The moderation system is entirely broken. Since the goals of the communities are different, however, it manifests in different ways. It's the same root problem, though. How sad.
...and the person who puts it up for speedy deletion contacts all of his/her friends and has them vote on it, the article gets deleted, and some college student just learned what all his or her hard work is really worth to wikipedia admins.
Don't get me wrong, it is indeed a valuable life lesson. Just one I wish didn't need to be taught.
Yeah. There are some good teachers, and there are some really bad ones. What the really bad ones could do with wikipedia really scares me.
Mix wikipedia editing and zero tolerance policies and things could get really dicey really fast.
And when the wikipedia admins come through and start wholesale editing or deleting articles, and then banning them when they try to defend their changes, they will also get a lesson in what happens when online communities start losing track of their core mission and are taken over by people with exaggerated egos and an axe to grind.
:)
Oh, wait. This is slashdot. No one here has any idea what I'm talking about. Nevermind.
Are you a lawyer?
If not, your opinion is worth just about as much as mine. So please forgive me if I don't particularly concern myself with what you think of my intelligence.
I have had many situations where I have, as an armchair lawyer (as opposed to a real, licensed one), said "Oh, that will never stand up in court". And guess what? It did.
The law is fickle. And I have very little faith in it.
Oh, I quite agree. Copyright law is way too broad and applied way too much against things it really shouldn't be.
:-)
But I really don't hold out much hope of that changing anytime soon. The powerful people are too entrenched and many of the judges seem to favor the broadest interpretations of the law possible.
I'm only referring to the way things are, not as they should be. I'm a pragmatist.
Hmm. You know what, after looking a little further, maybe it could withstand a fair use defense. IANAL, so I am not certain. The noncommerciality, the fact that it's a short clip, and the fact that it's only ancilliary to the object of the clip, seem to bear that out. So I'll retract that part of my comment.
But I still think she's going to lose. That just seems to be how it's going with copyright law and the RIAA. The little person doesn't matter.
Sorry, but that's probably what's going to happen.
The fact is, that while it is indeed a derivative work, that is not fair use, and she did use a copyrighted work without authorization. We can argue over and over about whether that law is right, but it is what it is.
Her suing over that is colossally stupid and will likely just end in heartache.
I'm all for taking a rpincipled stand. But you need to make sure you're in the right.
(and because some moderators appear to be on crack based on their moderation of some previous comments, let me say that this is neither intended as a troll or flamebait)
Technology does not feed crime. Technology makes it easier for criminals to do their thing using the new technology for a few years while the law catches up.
Remember, neither lawyers, judges, nor police officers are experts in the Internet, computers, etc., and it takes a while for them to ramp up those skills.
As an aside, I wish they would ramp up on those skills BEFORE making stupid decisions that allow cartels like the RIAA to come to power.
I see the problem with technology as it relates to crime to be instead the fact that to catch criminals who are using technology deliberately designed to cloak them you have to make necessary modifications and allowances to the laws protecting civil liberty. And tampering with those laws at ALL is a bad idea because someone always sticks some shit in the bills that has nothing to do with protecting civil liberty.
Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.
:P
Congrats, Roy, I guess. Try not to drop the soap
(I woulda called the highway patrol on him too.)
That for all of the controls and quality control required of mission critical hardware such as this, it still comes down to:
1) unexpected failure modes
2) political battles
Which really isn't a whole lot different than 1) the unexpected failure modes I see every day at work, and 2) the political wrangling (fingerpointing) that takes place when they happen. Apparently NASA and its Russian equivalent are no better than any old software company.
The lesson being, people are people, and people are still the ones that design these things.
I have a brand new Chevy Aveo. I really like it.
Of course, it's made by Daewoo, but it's the thought that counts.
Oh, come on. I disgust you? There are many more things to be disgusted by than this. Such as the *flagrant* attacks on civil liberty coming from this government. This isn't even an attack on civil liberty, it's just a feature that you can opt out of (even if by pulling the fuse to the onstar system) that may make it easier for police to recover your car in the event it's stolen and save a few innocent lives in the process.
Do *you* live in Los Angeles, where you put your life on the line every day from car thieves running down the 405 in stolen vehicles, cutting people off and knocking them out of the way, all the while police following from a safe distance because the road is just too congested to safely PIT them?
And the comparison to Stalin is just a modified invocation of Godwin's law.
I'm sorry to everyone else, it just really bugs me when people compare me to Stalin for having a reasonable opinion.
I'm OK with this. In fact, I wish my car had OnStar with this enabled.
If you are in a car and the police find that there is a reason to stop your car, 9 times out of 10 it is a very good reason. Currently many high speed chases are done with stolen cars, and many times those chases end up with a wrecked car and a trail of destruction stretching many miles. Maybe this wouldn't completely prevent it, but there is legitimate public safety argument in this kind of feature.
Is it hackable? Yeah, of course. But so is the public power grid. There is a certain level of risk that we all have to live with - it's just a part of life. Can it be abused by police? Yeah. But then so can a thousand other things that we live with as well. In my view the benefits to public safety far outweigh the privacy concerns.
Now if onstar could also hold the doors locked and start a fire in the engine compartment, I'd think we have a serious problem.
Convince, bribe, all the same.
That's why laws like that don't make sense. But they do exist in some forms and in some jurisdictions.
I think the difference is that muzak is explicitly licensed for that kind of use.
Probably. You know the RIAA will milk it for all it's worth.
It's the law in the US too. It may not be precedential here, but it's still a concern.
Did you call them during the day, or in the middle of the night? If you called during the day, they probably just figured *you* are being the agitator. Frankly, I'd probably agree with that. (as long as it wasn't rattling your windows, etc.)
:P
But that does call to mind a good strategy. Rat them out to the RIAA.
contact, smart-aleck. :)
I guess spelling nazis do have their place, besides, that was kinda funny.
As another poster remarked, try doing that in a restaurant and watch the bills come in.
It's no better here.
Hey, it ain't anything new. You know they already get a tax on all of your blank media, yet you're still not allowed to copy stuff to it.
The recording industry is simply a racket with the full support of lawmakers.
You are witnessing a practical application of reducto ad absurdum.
The problem is, that kind of exercise is not supposed to have a practical application - it's supposed to be fleshed out before the bill is signed into law.
That's really where the system is breaking down - strong lobbies and stupid lawmakers.
Oddly enough, it is the law. This law may make no sense, but if you want it changed, you have to contect your elected representatives and convince them to change it.
On the flip side, this is what happens when record companies get desperate. That is a good thing, it means they're losing.
I'm all for people getting compensated for their hard work, but by any standard, this is ridiculous.
(Are the headphone makers sponsoring this?)