Well said. In addition, the media corps have rather easily made pop music and commercial films the focal point of the discussion. Easy to do because those are the two mediums with which people interact the most. To the corporations' political advantage because it makes it easy to tag anyone interested in a legitimate defense of copyright, consumer rights, and the interests of authors and artists as, instead, supporting the right of kids to steal CD's and DVD's. No politician wants to wear that label.
There's much more at risk here than the ability to copy music and movies.
And it's amazing how so many people here post dictionary definitions as if that's the arbiter of actual human behavior.
I don't have any problems with the first and third bullets in that definition. But, consider the number of people killed in the name of nationalism by those who appropriate the word for their own political ends. In line with the second bullet, it's historically been easy for thugs with guns to wrap themselves in nationalism.
So, when I hear someone described as a nationalist, I'm more likely to think of them as a "thug with a gun" than as a legitimate patriot.
The phrase "foreign types" stood alone in the original post. He only told us he was "mocking labeling" in his second post. I can't read his mind. Again, he wasn't referring to "foreigners" to distinguish them from U.S. citizens. He was making a generalized statement about the behavior of "foreign types" based solely on their status as "foreigners". I consider the phrase itself just as racist as "white types", "black types", "Asian types", "American types", etc.
Natinalism is not patriotism. Racism can be defined as believing in the inferiority of others who do not share your racial or ethnic components. Nationalism can be defined as believing in the inferiority of others who do not share your nationality.
Irrelevant. By lumping all non-U.S. citizens under the single rubric of "foreign type". the poster was telling us that the only attribute they possess that merits his attention is that they are not U.S. citizens. By doing so, he is willfully ignoring the history, culture and contributions of the rest of the world. Whatever those may be, he is saying that the only thing that matters to him is that they are "foreign". That's racism, just as much as "mocking" and "labeling" everyone born with a particular skin color.
In any case, the difference between nationalism and racism is so small it's almost invisible.
>>...represents a tongue-in-cheek, mocking labeling of everyone and anyone who isn't a US citizen...
"Mocking" and "labeling" anyone because they aren't U.S. citizens is a classic example of racism in my book.
Quality TV is in the eye of the beholder. My experience has been that the ratio of "good" to "rubbish" is higher on UK television than it is in the U.S. I attribute this to a production model that is not as tied to advertising revenues as is the U.S. model. I'm not ignoring the fact that much UK TV is supported by advertising, nor am i ignoring that fact that some U.S. programming is not supported by advertising. I am, though, taking note of the fact that BBC programming is supported by license fees, not advertising. That, and the fact that they are not married to the 13- 0r 26-show production run allows them to take risks with programming that commercial and public TV in the U.S. won't take. In the U.S., if the show doesn't sell product or new cable subscriptions, it disappears.
The size of the market might attract more people trying to make money from TV, but, as in most profit-driven media, the trend will be to copy other programming that is already makeing money for its advertisers. Thanks to that, we have multiple shopping channels, multiple informarcials, multiple cop shows, multiple "reality" shows, etc.,etc.
By the way, sorry you had to resort to the gratuitous "idiot" insult. Its use is in keeping, at least, with your admitted sloppy writing.
As a Yank, I have to say that's an embarrassing, bigoted and ill-informed post.
Your use of the phrase "foreign types" represents a racist labeling of everyone and anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen. It's evidence of your inability or unwillingness to see the world as it really is. I don't give much credence to fears of U.S.-inspired globalization efforts (much of that seems to be an effort to ensure that the poor and underdeveloped stay poor and underdeveloped) but your thoughts serve as evidence for those who do.
Likewise your approving reference to "Manifest Destiny", a discredited and equally racist concept that, in a contemporary context, would support U.S. seizure of territory beyond it's current borders.
As I am sure others will point out, Australia is not twice the size of Europe. Australia is smaller; indeed, it is the smallest continent. And, compared to Europe. it is largely unpopulated.
The variety and quality of programming on U.S. television is determined by the number and independence of the production companies creating that programming, not by the number of individual stations broadcasting that programming. This reflects the nature of the U.S. television industry. There is good programming on U.S. TV, but there is also an increasing surfeit of cheap tabloidesque programming that exists only because it increases the profit margin of that particular corporation. I haven't lived in France, but I have lived in the UK. On average, UK programming is more varied and interesting than U.S. programming precisely because the UK TV industry is not a mirror image of the U.S. industry.
I dunno...buying an overpriced, shackled, computer to watch and record music and (God help us) TV programs makes about as much sense as buying an overpriced TV to run your spreadsheets. Did the people running MS, HP, AOL, and all the rest have childhood fantasies about being movie moguls? This all smacks of a hangover from the late and unlamented flash-in-the-pan known as "convergence".
How practical or common is it for an artist to retain copyright to their own material? Is there a financial incentive to do that? Does a wish to retain copyright of recorded material have an impact on your chances of signing with a "mainstream" label?
Copyrights don't create intellectual property. Property is produced by the person who creates it. Copyright protects that person's interests in his/her creation for a period of time, as defined in law. In the U.S., that period of time has increased subsantially. Also, creators of intellectual property can transfer copyright to a corporation or some other organization. This often happens, for example, when a musician signs a contract with a recording company. That company will hold copyright on the tracks on the CD, while the artist may hold copyright on the actual sheet music.
"Traditional", or physical property is also transferred from one owner to the next when the property is sold. If a piece of physical property -- say, a house -- is left without an owner for enough time, an element of the government will certainly intervene. That's not reverting to public domain, but it does represent government action in the public's behalf.
"...making a copy of the numbers on it" is too broad. (In any case, intellectual property has little, if anything, to do with "physicial" property.) If you copy some of those numbers in accordance with the fair use clause, you're OK. If someone disagrees, they can take you to court.
If you copy the entirety of an intellectual property and post it on a global distribution network, you won't find solace in the fair use clause.
If so many/.'s think that is fair use, why don't they start countersuing the media companies?
Where did you pick up the notion that trademark and patent law is intended to protect "the little guy"? They're intended to protect the holder of a trademark or patent. Ditto copyright.
Throwing lawyers at fan sites is not a smart move by MLB, but semi-coherent whinings on/. won't do any good, either.
I think you'd find that "criticism" would mean a published review, essay, examination, etc., that quotes a portion of the piece in order to illustrate and support the thrust of the criticism. It does not mean "It is legal for me to steal this thing before its owner wants to release it".
If you believe pointing to a dictionary can defend you in court, go find a lawyer.
In fact, you are depriving someone of property. The movie you're stealing is intellectual property. You're depriving the owner of that property of their exclusive right to reproduce and distribute copies of their property. If you illegally download a movie from someone who has illegally posted it, you are acting to deprive the property's owner of that right. Lost sales might be an issue in a damage claim as part of a civil suit, but -- as open source advocates realize -- property can be stolen even if the owner chooses to give it away.
For all you who imagine that electronic shoplifting is somehow different than walking into a local shop and pocketing a DVD, here's the text of the fair use clause from the U.S. copyright law. You will notice that "wanting to see a movie prior to release" is not listed as an example of fair use.
...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Nice to see that/. is, once again, posting yesterday's news today.
The use of team logos, etc., on a personal, noncommercial website certainly seems to fall within the fair use clause of the copyright law. On the other hand, trademarks have been lost because their owners were not diligent in taking legal action against any illegal use. However, a fan site exists only to build support and enthusiam for a team, which is all to the benefit of a team's bottom line.
Thieves and pirates are criminals, dimwit, not customers. No way that posting or downloading the entirety of someone else's property constitututes fair use (read the clause?). If you're so convinced that it is legal, see if you can find a lawyer to represent you based on that belief.
Assuming the Apple would not be so blindingly stupid as to release an x86 OSX that ran happily on PC boxes made by anyone but Apple, it eems to me there are lots of ways to inextricably bind Apple hardware and software together, regardless of the chip that's inside: don't use the standard PC architecture, code key software components to run only on specific Apple hardware components, refuse all online transactions w/Apple and manual software installs if the machine's serial number isn't there, etc.
(By the way, isn't complaining about an alleged Apple "hardware tax" a bit like a Geo owner complaining about a Lexus tax?)
Here's an easy test to determine if your Windows users have enough basic savvy to even think about moving them to Linux:
1. Using any application, create and save a new file.
2. Using any other application, find that file.
Sad to say, I've found that many people cannot do that. (A surprising number don't know what "application" means.)
Now, that doesn't mean they're any less intelligent than the rest of us. it just means that Windows allows them to successfully go about their business with no awareness of things like file systems, directories, etc.
Setting up a Unix system can be hell> for a novice if no one or nothing is there to help and provide guidance -- the most likely scenario in a corporate environment.
As for Windows, most folks don't set anything up. They just use whatever the IT department pushed out to them.
And most people are used to Windows. Inertia will keep them there unless something motivates them to switch. In a business environment, that might be a boss who replaces Windows with Linux. (In my experience, tho, people in that environment go ballistic when the slighest change is made to the stock desktop. Can't imagine what a switch to Linux might provoke -- beyond demands for a week's worth of training.)
For people who buy their own computers and software, and discounting the few with latent geek tendencies, Linux doesn't yet offer a compelling reason to switch.
Congress, Not "Govt." Declares War
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
>> Problem with this as a policy is that the Govt. simply declares a war without end (cold war, drug war, war on terrorism) and then can never be questioned...
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war only in the Congress. If Congress votes to take the nation into war -- issue a formal declaration of war -- the President and the rest of the Executive Department may exercise certain wartime powers and responsibilities.
The last time the Congress issued a declaration of war was in December, 1941, i.e., the beginning of U.S. involvement in World War Two. All military actions of the U.S. since then have been conducted under the considerable powers vested in the President as commander-in-chief. The Bush adminstration's assertion that it is not Constitutionally obligated to seek Congressional approval for military action in Iraq may lead to political and legal action that modifies the Presidency's independent ability to initiate military action.
"Wars" on drugs, etc., are simply public relations devices intended to foster public support, and funds, for some declared purposes.
Re:Ask Security Services to deny this
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Would you prefer that terrorists and murderers being given free rein on the Internet with no possibility of restraint? Of course surveillance of the net will mean some criminals will revert to face-to-face meetings. Others won't be able to communicate, and their plans will not succeed.
If you stand in the middle of a public park and vocalize plans to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S., odds are that any cop within earshot will intervene. If you use the Internet to vocalize and coordinate those plans, others cops within earshot also intervene.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. In addition, the media corps have rather easily made pop music and commercial films the focal point of the discussion. Easy to do because those are the two mediums with which people interact the most. To the corporations' political advantage because it makes it easy to tag anyone interested in a legitimate defense of copyright, consumer rights, and the interests of authors and artists as, instead, supporting the right of kids to steal CD's and DVD's. No politician wants to wear that label.
There's much more at risk here than the ability to copy music and movies.
And it's amazing how so many people here post dictionary definitions as if that's the arbiter of actual human behavior.
I don't have any problems with the first and third bullets in that definition. But, consider the number of people killed in the name of nationalism by those who appropriate the word for their own political ends. In line with the second bullet, it's historically been easy for thugs with guns to wrap themselves in nationalism.
So, when I hear someone described as a nationalist, I'm more likely to think of them as a "thug with a gun" than as a legitimate patriot.
The phrase "foreign types" stood alone in the original post. He only told us he was "mocking labeling" in his second post. I can't read his mind. Again, he wasn't referring to "foreigners" to distinguish them from U.S. citizens. He was making a generalized statement about the behavior of "foreign types" based solely on their status as "foreigners". I consider the phrase itself just as racist as "white types", "black types", "Asian types", "American types", etc.
Natinalism is not patriotism. Racism can be defined as believing in the inferiority of others who do not share your racial or ethnic components. Nationalism can be defined as believing in the inferiority of others who do not share your nationality.
Irrelevant. By lumping all non-U.S. citizens under the single rubric of "foreign type". the poster was telling us that the only attribute they possess that merits his attention is that they are not U.S. citizens. By doing so, he is willfully ignoring the history, culture and contributions of the rest of the world. Whatever those may be, he is saying that the only thing that matters to him is that they are "foreign". That's racism, just as much as "mocking" and "labeling" everyone born with a particular skin color.
In any case, the difference between nationalism and racism is so small it's almost invisible.
>> ...represents a tongue-in-cheek, mocking labeling of everyone and anyone who isn't a US citizen...
"Mocking" and "labeling" anyone because they aren't U.S. citizens is a classic example of racism in my book.
Quality TV is in the eye of the beholder. My experience has been that the ratio of "good" to "rubbish" is higher on UK television than it is in the U.S. I attribute this to a production model that is not as tied to advertising revenues as is the U.S. model. I'm not ignoring the fact that much UK TV is supported by advertising, nor am i ignoring that fact that some U.S. programming is not supported by advertising. I am, though, taking note of the fact that BBC programming is supported by license fees, not advertising. That, and the fact that they are not married to the 13- 0r 26-show production run allows them to take risks with programming that commercial and public TV in the U.S. won't take. In the U.S., if the show doesn't sell product or new cable subscriptions, it disappears.
The size of the market might attract more people trying to make money from TV, but, as in most profit-driven media, the trend will be to copy other programming that is already makeing money for its advertisers. Thanks to that, we have multiple shopping channels, multiple informarcials, multiple cop shows, multiple "reality" shows, etc.,etc.
By the way, sorry you had to resort to the gratuitous "idiot" insult. Its use is in keeping, at least, with your admitted sloppy writing.
As a Yank, I have to say that's an embarrassing, bigoted and ill-informed post.
Your use of the phrase "foreign types" represents a racist labeling of everyone and anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen. It's evidence of your inability or unwillingness to see the world as it really is. I don't give much credence to fears of U.S.-inspired
globalization efforts (much of that seems to be an effort to ensure that the poor and underdeveloped stay poor and underdeveloped) but your thoughts serve as evidence for those who do.
Likewise your approving reference to "Manifest Destiny", a discredited and equally racist concept that, in a contemporary context, would support U.S. seizure of territory beyond it's current borders.
As I am sure others will point out, Australia is not twice the size of Europe. Australia is smaller; indeed, it is the smallest continent. And, compared to Europe. it is largely unpopulated.
The variety and quality of programming on U.S. television is determined by the number and independence of the production companies creating that programming, not by the number of individual stations broadcasting that programming. This reflects the nature of the U.S. television industry. There is good programming on U.S. TV, but there is also an increasing surfeit of cheap tabloidesque programming that exists only because it increases the profit margin of that particular corporation. I haven't lived in France, but I have lived in the UK. On average, UK programming is more varied and interesting than U.S. programming precisely because the UK TV industry is not a mirror image of the U.S. industry.
Arguably, all icon/mouse-based interfaces are pretty much the same. I.e., you click on an icon and something happens.
Maybe building a desktop that uses icons and a mouse that doesn't look like all the rest will have to wait for the shift that rids us of mice.
I see some small banner ads for a couple of sponsors, nothing more.
"Abstracts"?
Since when did Slashdot do anything butwait for someone to send it stories? This one has all the earmarks of a press release. No harm in that.
I dunno...buying an overpriced, shackled, computer to watch and record music and (God help us) TV programs makes about as much sense as buying an overpriced TV to run your spreadsheets. Did the people running MS, HP, AOL, and all the rest have childhood fantasies about being movie moguls? This all smacks of a hangover from the late and unlamented flash-in-the-pan known as "convergence".
How practical or common is it for an artist to retain copyright to their own material? Is there a financial incentive to do that? Does a wish to retain copyright of recorded material have an impact on your chances of signing with a "mainstream" label?
Copyrights don't create intellectual property. Property is produced by the person who creates it. Copyright protects that person's interests in his/her creation for a period of time, as defined in law. In the U.S., that period of time has increased subsantially. Also, creators of intellectual property can transfer copyright to a corporation or some other organization. This often happens, for example, when a musician signs a contract with a recording company. That company will hold copyright on the tracks on the CD, while the artist may hold copyright on the actual sheet music.
"Traditional", or physical property is also transferred from one owner to the next when the property is sold. If a piece of physical property -- say, a house -- is left without an owner for enough time, an element of the government will certainly intervene. That's not reverting to public domain, but it does represent government action in the public's behalf.
"...making a copy of the numbers on it" is too broad. (In any case, intellectual property has little, if anything, to do with "physicial" property.) If you copy some of those numbers in accordance with the fair use clause, you're OK. If someone disagrees, they can take you to court.
/.'s think that is fair use, why don't they start countersuing the media companies?
If you copy the entirety of an intellectual property and post it on a global distribution network, you won't find solace in the fair use clause.
If so many
Where did you pick up the notion that trademark and patent law is intended to protect "the little guy"? They're intended to protect the holder of a trademark or patent. Ditto copyright.
/. won't do any good, either.
Throwing lawyers at fan sites is not a smart move by MLB, but semi-coherent whinings on
I think you'd find that "criticism" would mean a published review, essay, examination, etc., that quotes a portion of the piece in order to illustrate and support the thrust of the criticism. It does not mean "It is legal for me to steal this thing before its owner wants to release it".
If you believe pointing to a dictionary can defend you in court, go find a lawyer.
In fact, you are depriving someone of property. The movie you're stealing is intellectual property. You're depriving the owner of that property of their exclusive right to reproduce and distribute copies of their property. If you illegally download a movie from someone who has illegally posted it, you are acting to deprive the property's owner of that right. Lost sales might be an issue in a damage claim as part of a civil suit, but -- as open source advocates realize -- property can be stolen even if the owner chooses to give it away.
Nice to see that /. is, once again, posting yesterday's news today.
The use of team logos, etc., on a personal, noncommercial website certainly seems to fall within the fair use clause of the copyright law. On the other hand, trademarks have been lost because their owners were not diligent in taking legal action against any illegal use. However, a fan site exists only to build support and enthusiam for a team, which is all to the benefit of a team's bottom line.
Thieves and pirates are criminals, dimwit, not customers. No way that posting or downloading the entirety of someone else's property constitututes fair use (read the clause?). If you're so convinced that it is legal, see if you can find a lawyer to represent you based on that belief.
Assuming the Apple would not be so blindingly stupid as to release an x86 OSX that ran happily on PC boxes made by anyone but Apple, it eems to me there are lots of ways to inextricably bind Apple hardware and software together, regardless of the chip that's inside: don't use the standard PC architecture, code key software components to run only on specific Apple hardware components, refuse all online transactions w/Apple and manual software installs if the machine's serial number isn't there, etc.
(By the way, isn't complaining about an alleged Apple "hardware tax" a bit like a Geo owner complaining about a Lexus tax?)
Here's an easy test to determine if your Windows users have enough basic savvy to even think about moving them to Linux:
1. Using any application, create and save a new file.
2. Using any other application, find that file.
Sad to say, I've found that many people cannot do that. (A surprising number don't know what "application" means.)
Now, that doesn't mean they're any less intelligent than the rest of us. it just means that Windows allows them to successfully go about their business with no awareness of things like file systems, directories, etc.
So, yes, desktop Linux has a way to go.
Setting up a Unix system can be hell> for a novice if no one or nothing is there to help and provide guidance -- the most likely scenario in a corporate environment.
As for Windows, most folks don't set anything up. They just use whatever the IT department pushed out to them.
>> ...a case of what people are used to..
And most people are used to Windows. Inertia will keep them there unless something motivates them to switch. In a business environment, that might be a boss who replaces Windows with Linux. (In my experience, tho, people in that environment go ballistic when the slighest change is made to the stock desktop. Can't imagine what a switch to Linux might provoke -- beyond demands for a week's worth of training.)
For people who buy their own computers and software, and discounting the few with latent geek tendencies, Linux doesn't yet offer a compelling reason to switch.
>> Problem with this as a policy is that the Govt. simply declares a war without end (cold war, drug war, war on terrorism) and then can never be questioned...
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war only in the Congress. If Congress votes to take the nation into war -- issue a formal declaration of war -- the President and the rest of the Executive Department may exercise certain wartime powers and responsibilities.
The last time the Congress issued a declaration of war was in December, 1941, i.e., the beginning of U.S. involvement in World War Two. All military actions of the U.S. since then have been conducted under the considerable powers vested in the President as commander-in-chief. The Bush adminstration's assertion that it is not Constitutionally obligated to seek Congressional approval for military action in Iraq may lead to political and legal action that modifies the Presidency's independent ability to initiate military action.
"Wars" on drugs, etc., are simply public relations devices intended to foster public support, and funds, for some declared purposes.
Would you prefer that terrorists and murderers being given free rein on the Internet with no possibility of restraint? Of course surveillance of the net will mean some criminals will revert to face-to-face meetings. Others won't be able to communicate, and their plans will not succeed.
If you stand in the middle of a public park and vocalize plans to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S., odds are that any cop within earshot will intervene. If you use the Internet to vocalize and coordinate those plans, others cops within earshot also intervene.