I have to admit I am very disappointed that a good, useful helpful book is not oging to be printed because everyone complained. Software and music and information should all be free, but just try to "take" something worth very little monetarily from the spoiled whiners on/.
..once one car were manufactured, there could be 10 billion copies of the car with no cost.
That rationale is the reason people pirate sotware and music. Copying something digitally doesn't cost anything and I wouldn't have bought the music anyway - right? Well the reality is that it does cost something to the artist. All the people here who complained about Katz and Slashdot copying their articles for the book - hey, what's the problem? It's just a digital copy and those don't cost anything.
Cost is more than a direct monetary thing. It is indirect money, but it is also control and ownership.
Which part says he gives up his right to Free Speech?
The conditions of his probabtion said that he basically couldn't do anything with computers and specifically prohibited him from speaking about computers. That part of his probabtion says he voluntarily gives up his right to speech about computer issues.
Yet again people misunderstand the first amendment. Say it with me..."Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Did Congress pass a law? No, a judge ruled. Even so, if you read the article, you would note that the article said "Under a plea agreement, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access." Do you know what a plea agreement means? It means he agreed to it. He could have gone to trial, but he agreed. And now he is complaining.
Mitnick, like the rest of us, has first amendment rights that are protected. But like all of us they are not unlimitied and absolute. They can be restricted when we enter into a contract (which includes a plea bargain).
I do think Mitnick was made an example of, but he's out now and he agreed to the terms.
As far as the fourth amendment, no one stripped Mitnick's constitutional rights except him! He agreed to the terms.
I agree. And as a side effect of everyone getting wired up through AOL, more businesses have gone online. This makes it easier for me to look up movie times, buy stuff, or do all the things I use the web for. The sheer number of people AOL brings to the table makes the features of the internet grow. This gives us cool stuff and keeps a lot of us employed.
I find the comments to this story to be for the most part hypocritical.
Amazon.com patents are bad - they shouldn't be able to protect their ideas...but...Slashdot readers' post's copyrights are good - they should be able to protect every word.
Open Source / Open access to info is good - access to software and information should be free...but...Taking public posts and putting them into a book is bad - Slashdot posters should be paid for their comments.
This is the problem I have with the anti-patent / open source everything mentality - it only is supported when you are on the getting end, not the giving end.
How about instead we talk about the actual book and the potential good it might do for kids dealing with the shit in it?
...the courts have effectively ignored the fact that many patents are just blatant attempts to capitalize on the obvious... Obvious to who? Something about the internet (i.e. one-click) is obvious to me and it is probably obvious to you, but is it obvious to a judge? I don't think the courts are ignoring anything; I think they are legitimately ignorant of a lot of the things patents are being granted for. With today's market almost everyone who knows anything about computers is in the computer industry. (Exceptions of course). Those are the people a patent is supposed to protect my work from, but ironically they are the only people capable of understanding it. Seems to me you're stuck either having the patent office/courts not understand the technology or you run the risk of it leaking out before your patent is granted.
Remember though, if every ISP in America decided to do the exact same thing, it would NOT be violation of the first amendment.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..". It is designed to protect people from the government, not from other people.
In the U.S. there is no right to a web page. The only thing the first amendment protects our speech against is the government passing laws.
However, an argument can be made that the laws that allow frivilious lawsuits and bully ISPs into making changes like this limit free speech. But people would be even less happy if their right to sue was taken away.
I don't know how things work in the UK per se, but this is something that even if they had a first amendment, it would not address. The ISPs censored the material - not the government.
Jon summarized the WAVE position as "Hey, don't blame us. A North Carolina Task Force came up with this, got the governor's blessing, and somebody is going to run it.Why not us? We know how, and if we don't do it, somebody else will." and then he says I made some points directly to the people who needed to hear it.
I gotta say, I think it is totally reasonable to speak with the WAVE folks and bonus points to Jon for doing it. However, you have to take a look at what motivates people. Corporations, by definition, have a responsibility to make money. Now, ideally, they can make money and be responsible, but they have to make money to survive. So, convining them tot turn down money is a tough fight.
It seems to me that the place to fight this is the government. They don't have a responsibility to make money - they have a responsibility to protect our freedoms and our safety (and balance the two). Since it is on the internet, it can't be limitied to North Carolina. I recommend we call and write our representatives in congress and push for legislation outlawing this type of profiling.
Look, all respect to Katz, he clealy captured a SUBSET of women and described how they interact with the net. However, I resent the generalities such as "Now, younger men online are interested in techology -- programming, software and hardware, among other things. Women are also interested in Net-offshoots like gaming, but seem more interested in using the Net to find other women, to have some say in issues they care about, something often lacking in their offline lives." Okay, maybe that's what the statistics say, but we all know statistics are rarely accurate.
I'm female, 24, and a programmer. I have been programming since age 7. I am deeply interested in techology -- programming, software and hardware. It's not easy being female and a programmer and the people who are the worst about it - the most likely to assume I know nothing - are other women! I would never use the Net to find other women.
Katz is right, it is still often difficult for young women to show open interest in science and technology, especially in middle and high schools. Why add to it by writing an article about how women aren't as interested in technology online?
In my world, I don't care if I talk to men or women online. But I am concerned that women don't become "empowered" by isolating themseleves on the net. Most people who make software are guys. If you can't live in that world, you don't stand a chance of changing it.
In some respects, an Amiga is faster than a Pentium. Mostly because the software that was written for them was written when programs still fit on floppys. So, a lot of the stuff that bloats programs today isn't there. When there is less to run, it runs faster.
People almost never read the verbage and think about what the author is trying to say
I did. I even read it twice. I think Katz is trying to raise a lot of issues that people should think about. I commend the article for that. I did think about them. I chose to comment on one sentence that I found representative of the article as a whole. If you read the article you can see that Katz isn't writing an unbiased new article. It is chock full of opinion. A lot of that opinion is hidden in statements like the one I highlighted. I think it's important for people to catch the subtlety.
Yes, let's have unbounded capitalism! Let the rich eat the poor alive! Remeber: because you were born into the upper class gives you the right to oppress others, cause hey!, you earned it!
I definately think there are and should be bounds to capitalism. However, no one ever died because they couldn't afford "a 1,000-song playlist." Plus, I am not upper class. There are many times I don't buy things because I can't afford them. I am not owed anything becuase of this.
Now you have me confused. Are you saying that it's alright for you to make illegal copies of music, but not poor people? Why is that? Because most of them are black? Just because you hate hip-hop doesn't mean you can censor it.
No. I am saying it is not right for me or for poor people. The law is fair and I know about it, but sometimes we choose to do something that is wrong because it feels good or is benefical to us.
Besides, I highly doubt there are a ton of poor inner city black people that can't afford $15 for a CD but have $1500 computers. This is not a race or class issue.
It's often irresistible -- how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it?
First, I hate the use of the pronoun "she" as in "she couldn't possibly afford." More and more writers are doing this - not just katz - and I hate it. I am a chick and I don't know if this is supposed to make me feel good, but it doesn't. It is poor grammar and doesn't even make sense here as I bet more men download MP3s than women. I hate when people try to be PC and sacrifice grammar and sense.
That said, the sentence itself is also ridiculous. "how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford..?" Gee, I can't afford a BMW, but you can reasonably expect me not to steal one. Can't afford a house either, but it's reasonable I won't steal one. But music is cheaper so I guess it's not really stealing.
"...afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it?" Prefers? How about in the manner that the recording industry makes money off of it vs. the manner in which they don't?
Geez - this whole article is so PC. These poor underprivileged kids can't afford CDs which the big nasty record executive could easily give away but those meanies decide to sell. So they instinctively copy them for free. I think we instinctively breathe, reproduce, eat..but I'm pretty sure I don't instinctively go to my PC and copy MP3s. I choose to - and I know it's against the law. And I know the law protects people who own the music. I just want what I want for free. Let's just be honest about it.
I am really mad about this whole issue - but not at Amazon. I'm mad reading posts here and I'm mad at B&N. I'm sick of the attitude I hear about how bogus the 1-click patent is. It is so easy to say - years after somehing is thought of - that it is obvious. Of course it's obvious - it's there. But it's only there because someone thought of it.
Do you really think it is fair that Amazon thinks of cool stuff and every single time they have a successful idea B&N steals it? I've had people do similar things to me at work and it makes me furious. B&N has an advantage to the average person (by that I mean the typical non-geek internet user) because they actually have stores so they have name recognition. Couple that with riping of every good idea Amazon has and Amazon doesn't have a chance. The point of patent law is to protect companies who have new ideas from being ripped off by copy cats like B&N and putting the innovators out of business.
That said, I really do think that the time period is too long - even what Bezos suggested. I like 2 years myself. But given the current system I think Bezos would be negligent if he didn't enforce the patent. If I was a stockholder and he dropped the lawsuit I would be pissed. Way to just give away the company.
Maybe you guys like to do work and have it ripped off. I don't. And no matter how obvious you think 1-click is, I don't see any of your guys running Amazon.
What if you worked on something you put time and throught into and I decided that it was cool enough to use in my business and I just took it? You worked on it, you thought of it - your business should benefit, right? But now I copied it and made it status quo. I get as much benefit as you do but you invested more. In my book that is as blatent as stealing money and the law should protect against it. (Granted the law could be better structured.)
Anyone got any innovative business practices from their business they want to give away to everyone else in their industry?
The reality is that you've spent some time (agreed!) mining something that in reality belongs to everyone and now you're claiming squatter's rights.
Almost all knowledge belongs to everyone to begin with. I mean, anyone could have come up with the theory of gravity or laws of motion. These things didn't come from something private. Nature is public. There is still a big difference between talking about it and doing it. I still believe that in a philosophical sense if someone gets off their ass and does something, they should be rewarded. It's easy to say "anyone could have done it." It's a lot harder to actually do it.
In addition before you could even start mining you had to have a bunch of assistance from the community to blow the cap off the well, and you feel that the community is now owed nothing.
I definately don't think that the community is owed nothing. Anyone who contributes to a project should get the same reward I would (in proportion to ammount of work). I'm not sure exactly what you mean by assistance from the community here, but more generally I absolutely believe anyone that helps a project that is revolutionary should be rewarded - as long as the help is meaningful and active. By active I mean the fact that I have genes is not enough. I have to do something active.
I just don't think I could do tons and tons of scientific work that would dramatically impact modern medicine and not want to make a ton of money. I think that people that do things that are breakthroughs should get paid a ton.
With that said I am not sure that patents, copyrights, etc are the best way to guarantee money. However, realistically that's what we've got right now so you shouldn't blame them for wanting to cash in.
I'm all for open source and open access to information, but I also want money when I've done something really revolutionary
Read Locke or Thoreau sometime - it has to do with the core political theory upon which our government derives its power as a democracy.
Locke's theories can be used on either side of the issue. For example, in Locke's social contract, he states that the purpose of gov't is to do for people that which they can not do for themselves. (That being the only reason we would leave a state of nature and enter into society).
It is a very legitimate argument to say that, for example, the music industry needs the goverment to step in to help them protect their property. If the government didn't step in to stop people from getting MP3s for free, the practice of buying CDs would be less prevalent (which Katz shows very well in Geeks).
In the social contract perspective this could be perceived as no different than the government agreeing to protect my property (a very core sentiment of social contract theory).
Clearly a corporation is a different entity, but not one that Locke himself had a lot of experience with. My point is that there is a philosophical line and the true threat of these new laws is that some some of what they do is good but most is very bad.
I have yet to see one post that points out the ways Verisign has abused its monopoly status or would.
A monopoly is bad not because they are mean people or they maliciously abuse their monopoly status. (Although these are bad things) A monopoly is bad because by definition it eliminates all competition and limits the choices of consumers in a variety of areas.
However.. remember you can be a monopoly as long as you do not stiffle competition. Sure this is never good to have more power centralized but is it BAD?
Again, by definition a monopoly eliminates all competition. That's what a monopoly is.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit I am very disappointed that a good, useful helpful book is not oging to be printed because everyone complained. Software and music and information should all be free, but just try to "take" something worth very little monetarily from the spoiled whiners on /.
That rationale is the reason people pirate sotware and music. Copying something digitally doesn't cost anything and I wouldn't have bought the music anyway - right? Well the reality is that it does cost something to the artist. All the people here who complained about Katz and Slashdot copying their articles for the book - hey, what's the problem? It's just a digital copy and those don't cost anything.
Cost is more than a direct monetary thing. It is indirect money, but it is also control and ownership.
see snippet from his terms of probation
Yeah, that's exactly the same thing - they were going to kill him in the town square.
Look, I said I think they used him as an example, and I do think he got shafted in some areas. I just don't think this is one of them.
Here is a snippet from:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1998
CA No. 97-50365
D.C. No. CR-95-00603-MRP-1
KEVIN DAVID MITNICK,
PETITIONER,
-VS.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENT.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
This is what he agreed to.
The conditions of his probabtion said that he basically couldn't do anything with computers and specifically prohibited him from speaking about computers. That part of his probabtion says he voluntarily gives up his right to speech about computer issues.
Did Congress pass a law? No, a judge ruled. Even so, if you read the article, you would note that the article said "Under a plea agreement, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access." Do you know what a plea agreement means? It means he agreed to it. He could have gone to trial, but he agreed. And now he is complaining.
Mitnick, like the rest of us, has first amendment rights that are protected. But like all of us they are not unlimitied and absolute. They can be restricted when we enter into a contract (which includes a plea bargain).
I do think Mitnick was made an example of, but he's out now and he agreed to the terms.
As far as the fourth amendment, no one stripped Mitnick's constitutional rights except him! He agreed to the terms.
I agree. And as a side effect of everyone getting wired up through AOL, more businesses have gone online. This makes it easier for me to look up movie times, buy stuff, or do all the things I use the web for. The sheer number of people AOL brings to the table makes the features of the internet grow. This gives us cool stuff and keeps a lot of us employed.
Amazon.com patents are bad - they shouldn't be able to protect their ideas...but...Slashdot readers' post's copyrights are good - they should be able to protect every word.
Open Source / Open access to info is good - access to software and information should be free...but...Taking public posts and putting them into a book is bad - Slashdot posters should be paid for their comments.
This is the problem I have with the anti-patent / open source everything mentality - it only is supported when you are on the getting end, not the giving end.
How about instead we talk about the actual book and the potential good it might do for kids dealing with the shit in it?
...the courts have effectively ignored the fact that many patents are just blatant attempts to capitalize on the obvious... Obvious to who? Something about the internet (i.e. one-click) is obvious to me and it is probably obvious to you, but is it obvious to a judge? I don't think the courts are ignoring anything; I think they are legitimately ignorant of a lot of the things patents are being granted for. With today's market almost everyone who knows anything about computers is in the computer industry. (Exceptions of course). Those are the people a patent is supposed to protect my work from, but ironically they are the only people capable of understanding it. Seems to me you're stuck either having the patent office/courts not understand the technology or you run the risk of it leaking out before your patent is granted.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..". It is designed to protect people from the government, not from other people.
In the U.S. there is no right to a web page. The only thing the first amendment protects our speech against is the government passing laws.
However, an argument can be made that the laws that allow frivilious lawsuits and bully ISPs into making changes like this limit free speech. But people would be even less happy if their right to sue was taken away.
I don't know how things work in the UK per se, but this is something that even if they had a first amendment, it would not address. The ISPs censored the material - not the government.
I gotta say, I think it is totally reasonable to speak with the WAVE folks and bonus points to Jon for doing it. However, you have to take a look at what motivates people. Corporations, by definition, have a responsibility to make money. Now, ideally, they can make money and be responsible, but they have to make money to survive. So, convining them tot turn down money is a tough fight.
It seems to me that the place to fight this is the government. They don't have a responsibility to make money - they have a responsibility to protect our freedoms and our safety (and balance the two). Since it is on the internet, it can't be limitied to North Carolina. I recommend we call and write our representatives in congress and push for legislation outlawing this type of profiling.
I'm female, 24, and a programmer. I have been programming since age 7. I am deeply interested in techology -- programming, software and hardware. It's not easy being female and a programmer and the people who are the worst about it - the most likely to assume I know nothing - are other women! I would never use the Net to find other women.
Katz is right, it is still often difficult for young women to show open interest in science and technology, especially in middle and high schools. Why add to it by writing an article about how women aren't as interested in technology online?
In my world, I don't care if I talk to men or women online. But I am concerned that women don't become "empowered" by isolating themseleves on the net. Most people who make software are guys. If you can't live in that world, you don't stand a chance of changing it.
In some respects, an Amiga is faster than a Pentium. Mostly because the software that was written for them was written when programs still fit on floppys. So, a lot of the stuff that bloats programs today isn't there. When there is less to run, it runs faster.
I did. I even read it twice. I think Katz is trying to raise a lot of issues that people should think about. I commend the article for that. I did think about them. I chose to comment on one sentence that I found representative of the article as a whole. If you read the article you can see that Katz isn't writing an unbiased new article. It is chock full of opinion. A lot of that opinion is hidden in statements like the one I highlighted. I think it's important for people to catch the subtlety.
I definately think there are and should be bounds to capitalism. However, no one ever died because they couldn't afford "a 1,000-song playlist." Plus, I am not upper class. There are many times I don't buy things because I can't afford them. I am not owed anything becuase of this.
Now you have me confused. Are you saying that it's alright for you to make illegal copies of music, but not poor people? Why is that? Because most of them are black? Just because you hate hip-hop doesn't mean you can censor it.
No. I am saying it is not right for me or for poor people. The law is fair and I know about it, but sometimes we choose to do something that is wrong because it feels good or is benefical to us.
Besides, I highly doubt there are a ton of poor inner city black people that can't afford $15 for a CD but have $1500 computers. This is not a race or class issue.
First, I hate the use of the pronoun "she" as in "she couldn't possibly afford." More and more writers are doing this - not just katz - and I hate it. I am a chick and I don't know if this is supposed to make me feel good, but it doesn't. It is poor grammar and doesn't even make sense here as I bet more men download MP3s than women. I hate when people try to be PC and sacrifice grammar and sense.
That said, the sentence itself is also ridiculous. "how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford..?" Gee, I can't afford a BMW, but you can reasonably expect me not to steal one. Can't afford a house either, but it's reasonable I won't steal one. But music is cheaper so I guess it's not really stealing.
"...afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it?" Prefers? How about in the manner that the recording industry makes money off of it vs. the manner in which they don't?
Geez - this whole article is so PC. These poor underprivileged kids can't afford CDs which the big nasty record executive could easily give away but those meanies decide to sell. So they instinctively copy them for free. I think we instinctively breathe, reproduce, eat..but I'm pretty sure I don't instinctively go to my PC and copy MP3s. I choose to - and I know it's against the law. And I know the law protects people who own the music. I just want what I want for free. Let's just be honest about it.
Do you really think it is fair that Amazon thinks of cool stuff and every single time they have a successful idea B&N steals it? I've had people do similar things to me at work and it makes me furious. B&N has an advantage to the average person (by that I mean the typical non-geek internet user) because they actually have stores so they have name recognition. Couple that with riping of every good idea Amazon has and Amazon doesn't have a chance. The point of patent law is to protect companies who have new ideas from being ripped off by copy cats like B&N and putting the innovators out of business.
That said, I really do think that the time period is too long - even what Bezos suggested. I like 2 years myself. But given the current system I think Bezos would be negligent if he didn't enforce the patent. If I was a stockholder and he dropped the lawsuit I would be pissed. Way to just give away the company.
Maybe you guys like to do work and have it ripped off. I don't. And no matter how obvious you think 1-click is, I don't see any of your guys running Amazon.
What if you worked on something you put time and throught into and I decided that it was cool enough to use in my business and I just took it? You worked on it, you thought of it - your business should benefit, right? But now I copied it and made it status quo. I get as much benefit as you do but you invested more. In my book that is as blatent as stealing money and the law should protect against it. (Granted the law could be better structured.)
Anyone got any innovative business practices from their business they want to give away to everyone else in their industry?
Almost all knowledge belongs to everyone to begin with. I mean, anyone could have come up with the theory of gravity or laws of motion. These things didn't come from something private. Nature is public. There is still a big difference between talking about it and doing it. I still believe that in a philosophical sense if someone gets off their ass and does something, they should be rewarded. It's easy to say "anyone could have done it." It's a lot harder to actually do it.
In addition before you could even start mining you had to have a bunch of assistance from the community to blow the cap off the well, and you feel that the community is now owed nothing.
I definately don't think that the community is owed nothing. Anyone who contributes to a project should get the same reward I would (in proportion to ammount of work). I'm not sure exactly what you mean by assistance from the community here, but more generally I absolutely believe anyone that helps a project that is revolutionary should be rewarded - as long as the help is meaningful and active. By active I mean the fact that I have genes is not enough. I have to do something active.
With that said I am not sure that patents, copyrights, etc are the best way to guarantee money. However, realistically that's what we've got right now so you shouldn't blame them for wanting to cash in.
I'm all for open source and open access to information, but I also want money when I've done something really revolutionary
Locke's theories can be used on either side of the issue. For example, in Locke's social contract, he states that the purpose of gov't is to do for people that which they can not do for themselves. (That being the only reason we would leave a state of nature and enter into society).
It is a very legitimate argument to say that, for example, the music industry needs the goverment to step in to help them protect their property. If the government didn't step in to stop people from getting MP3s for free, the practice of buying CDs would be less prevalent (which Katz shows very well in Geeks).
In the social contract perspective this could be perceived as no different than the government agreeing to protect my property (a very core sentiment of social contract theory).
Clearly a corporation is a different entity, but not one that Locke himself had a lot of experience with. My point is that there is a philosophical line and the true threat of these new laws is that some some of what they do is good but most is very bad.
A monopoly is bad not because they are mean people or they maliciously abuse their monopoly status. (Although these are bad things) A monopoly is bad because by definition it eliminates all competition and limits the choices of consumers in a variety of areas.
However.. remember you can be a monopoly as long as you do not stiffle competition. Sure this is never good to have more power centralized but is it BAD?
Again, by definition a monopoly eliminates all competition. That's what a monopoly is.