Yes. You are correct. That is the way the laws are now. But, the laws are not perfect, were not made by god. I think they should be changed. Just because I think that, does not mean I do not know what the current law is. I was just explaining why people are fine with enforcing copyright here, but are against the RIAA.
I agree completely. But is US diplomacy in any way germane to the subject of the parody? Does a political statement in a piece of music mean I lose all rights to the musical score. By extension, if I create an original song and mention "George W. Bush" in it anywhere, then every politician has a right to put my music in their commercials? I think there should be no limitations if you are mocking the message of a song, but if you are just using it because it has a good beat and putting your own words to it, then that is stealing.
you'll need to prove how using the song provides direct monetary profit in a political campaign first, sorry.
No I don't. The reason the person is using the song is to give themselves an advantage at the polls so that they will be elected. That is the whole purpose of campaigning. Millions of dollars are spent on election campaigns, with the sole point being to get elected. It would be much harder to quantize the amount of "profit" they get from using the song, but I think any court would agree that an advantage gained in a political office is worth something.
You own the book. You have the right to do whatever you want with that book. If you have the last first edition in the world you have every right to sell it for as much as you want. But, you have no right at all to copy the book and sell the material (which is what the copyright covers). You have been given rights to your copy ONLY, not any copies that you want to make of it. Also, I am not sure where public book readings would fall under the law right now, but if you were making a profit off of them, I think you should have to give the author a share.
That is a valid argument. I just don't believe in it myself. You are getting an advantage from the song, but there is no material profit (money, publicity, ect). You definitely don't get a "profit" worth anywhere near what the RIAA will sue you for.
You say it would not be protected. Do you have a citation on that? Has someone sued on the basis of that and won?
The first is a parody of the message of the second. So, I believe it should be protected. Also, from all I have read, it is protected. Because it is a response to the original work.
What is the response to the songs? Is he in any way commenting on the songs? No. He is stealing the musical score for his own purposes. Those purposes happen to be political. But, that does not make stealing OK.
Yes, it may stifle the creation of satire. ANY copyright stifles creative works. Should we get rid of copyright? Or just make an exception for political works?
Every American has the right and (some say) responsibility to speak out and express their political views. Entertainers are just as much American citizens as anyone else. Not only do I say it is OK, I think it is the great thing about this country. Also, the songs they sing are their property. They should have control over who does or does not use it.
If you make a work and copyright it, then nobody should profit off of it without your permission. If you are running for political office and use the song, you are profiting from it and should be punished. If download it and sell CDs on the streets, then you are profiting from it and should be punished. If you download it to your iPod, then you don't profit so I don't think that a giant corporation should be suing you for $15k a song.
Are you really saying that "All She Wants to do is Dance" and "Boys of Summer" are politically motivated works? There are a lot of songs that are politically motivated, and for those I would agree with you. But, for songs such as this, they are just stealing.
Air bags and seat belts don't protect you from accidents either. But, I think they are a good analogy for AV software. You still have an accident and it still hurts, but you are less hurt and might survive because of it.
Re:I wonder what the DOJ will have to say...
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 1
It is illegal because companies do it. It is actually very profitable if you can get away with it. It can also be difficult to prove the difference between a complicated pricing scheme and anti-competitive behavior.
Also, by your definition...
<car analogy>
If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood, and someone tells me it will get stolen, then they are fearmongering? Because it is illegal to steal cars?
</car analogy>
Or am I misinterpreting your definition of "fearmongering"?
First, the bandwidth allocated to high and low priority remains the same as it is now.
I disagree with you there. The internet is constantly changing. What is good now will not necessarily be good in the future. Also, how do you handle new types of traffic? What really needs to be done is to make it illegal for an ISP to own content or to partner with someone who owns content (eliminate conflict of interest). But a stopgap could be to have the FCC monitor their traffic shaping and make sure it is fair.
Second, the priority is for type of traffic not source of traffic.
Last time I checked, it was not illegal to download p0rn. Why are you lumping it in with illegal activities?
And yes, there are illegal ways of downloading p0rn (copyrighted or underage). But, regardless of the ethical considerations, there is no law against downloading a video of consenting adults engaged in sexual activities. (At least, no federal law that I know of. I am sure some of the more conservative states have laws against it)
I agree. But I do not think it is similar to this case. The reason why deregulation helped in air travel is because there were many competing companies, so the market was able to "self-regulate" because people would vote with their pocketbooks. ISPs are different because there is currently a monopoly in most areas of the country, so there is no market to "self-regulate" itself. There are only the monopolies (or duopolies), which do not have the incentive to self-regulate.
I have no problem with them giving preferential treatment to different types of internet traffic. I do that within my own network (QOS on a WRT54GL running Tomato). I do not see why an ISP should not have the same right. It allows them to give better service to their customers. But, I do not think they should be able to hobble a protocol without oversight. And because, as a content distributor, Comcast has an interest users having less access to content online, and they are in most areas a monopoly in providing internet service, I believe regulatory oversight is necessary. Should Comcast have the right to give different protocols different priorities to provide their customers with a better service? Absolutely. Should Comcast have the right to give different protocols different priorities to give their other divisions a competitive advantage? Absolutely not. The problem is that there are no black and white rules that can define the difference, so you need a governmental agency that can react quickly to close loopholes in its regulations.
The whitehat team that found it told Palm about it before 1.4 was released and did not publish the exploit until it had been patched. I don't think they should get punished publicity-wise because they decided to follow ethical practices.
Whenever anyone comes out with a new way of making energy, then someone always says "but that is less efficient than x". 'x' usually being coal or nuclear or gas. But, how do you measure efficiency? If you have to have the inputs anyway (the cow has to eat) then they are already lost. This guy is not saying that we should breed more cows so that we can make electricity with them. So, we are just using energy that would have been wasted otherwise. Efficiency -> infinity. Same goes for the waste (solid and methane). It was going to happen anyway, why should you not get as much benefit as possible from it. Actually, if the cow can get exercise (by being on the treadmill), it might not mind so much having a collection method attached to its hindparts to collect the wastes (and maybe produce even more power from the methane).
and a cow that walks that much definitely eats a lot more than a cow that grazes the pasture or is kept in a stable without much room to move.
Are you sure? How much is a lot more? What benefits do you get from the cow getting exercise?
And besides I think there are much more cattle-friendly ways to exercise your cow.
I am sure there are. As there are more efficient ways to produce power. But, if you are in the business of making a profit, then compromises have to be made. The benefits might outweigh the costs.
Now, I am not saying that I think this is necessarily a good idea. But, I think it is has enough potential that it is worth taking a second look.
That is actually a business model that most people don't acknowledge. Open Source software is very rarely profitable by itself. But, if you are not in the software business, then it can make very good business sense. For example, say you create an innovative piece of hardware (for example a phone). You could license software from another company, but that will cut into your profit. You could create the software yourself, but creating software is not cheap, especially if you are trying to make quality software. Or, you could open source the software. You still invest money into the open source project. But you get more "bang for your buck" because the community is finding and fixing bugs for you. And, you make your profit off of the hardware. Good software means more value for the consumer so they buy more of your hardware and your company makes more money.
The key is to use OSS to add value but have a normal product that you sell. The value added from the OSS will likely end up in your pocket.
A lot of Americans got $8000 back because they bought a house. Also, buying a house gets you a lot more deductions. I ended up getting about $10K back. So, this year might not be the best to get fired up over people getting large refunds.
I think it is pretty easy to differentiate between spam and not-spam. If the person sending the unsolicited mail tries to obfuscate how or from where they are sending the mail, then it is spam. If it is a company that clearly lists who they are, then they can be held liable (whether by being sued or by public opinion) for what they send out. There is no reason for law enforcement to get involved if the civil sector can sort it out. If, on the other hand, there is no reasonable way to trace the unsolicited email back to a person, they are trying to limit the ability of the civil sector to deal with them, so law enforcement should get involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You are correct. That is the way the laws are now. But, the laws are not perfect, were not made by god. I think they should be changed. Just because I think that, does not mean I do not know what the current law is. I was just explaining why people are fine with enforcing copyright here, but are against the RIAA.
I agree completely. But is US diplomacy in any way germane to the subject of the parody? Does a political statement in a piece of music mean I lose all rights to the musical score. By extension, if I create an original song and mention "George W. Bush" in it anywhere, then every politician has a right to put my music in their commercials? I think there should be no limitations if you are mocking the message of a song, but if you are just using it because it has a good beat and putting your own words to it, then that is stealing.
you'll need to prove how using the song provides direct monetary profit in a political campaign first, sorry.
No I don't. The reason the person is using the song is to give themselves an advantage at the polls so that they will be elected. That is the whole purpose of campaigning. Millions of dollars are spent on election campaigns, with the sole point being to get elected. It would be much harder to quantize the amount of "profit" they get from using the song, but I think any court would agree that an advantage gained in a political office is worth something.
You own the book. You have the right to do whatever you want with that book. If you have the last first edition in the world you have every right to sell it for as much as you want. But, you have no right at all to copy the book and sell the material (which is what the copyright covers). You have been given rights to your copy ONLY, not any copies that you want to make of it. Also, I am not sure where public book readings would fall under the law right now, but if you were making a profit off of them, I think you should have to give the author a share.
That is a valid argument. I just don't believe in it myself. You are getting an advantage from the song, but there is no material profit (money, publicity, ect). You definitely don't get a "profit" worth anywhere near what the RIAA will sue you for.
You say it would not be protected. Do you have a citation on that? Has someone sued on the basis of that and won?
The first is a parody of the message of the second. So, I believe it should be protected. Also, from all I have read, it is protected. Because it is a response to the original work.
What is the response to the songs? Is he in any way commenting on the songs? No. He is stealing the musical score for his own purposes. Those purposes happen to be political. But, that does not make stealing OK.
Yes, it may stifle the creation of satire. ANY copyright stifles creative works. Should we get rid of copyright? Or just make an exception for political works?
Every American has the right and (some say) responsibility to speak out and express their political views. Entertainers are just as much American citizens as anyone else. Not only do I say it is OK, I think it is the great thing about this country. Also, the songs they sing are their property. They should have control over who does or does not use it.
Uhhh... citation needed? Do Democrats actually use more songs than Republicans without getting permission first?
Also, allowing someone to use your work for free is a way of contributing to a campaign. Are you saying this is wrong?
If you make a work and copyright it, then nobody should profit off of it without your permission. If you are running for political office and use the song, you are profiting from it and should be punished. If download it and sell CDs on the streets, then you are profiting from it and should be punished. If you download it to your iPod, then you don't profit so I don't think that a giant corporation should be suing you for $15k a song.
Are you really saying that "All She Wants to do is Dance" and "Boys of Summer" are politically motivated works? There are a lot of songs that are politically motivated, and for those I would agree with you. But, for songs such as this, they are just stealing.
Air bags and seat belts don't protect you from accidents either. But, I think they are a good analogy for AV software. You still have an accident and it still hurts, but you are less hurt and might survive because of it.
It is illegal because companies do it. It is actually very profitable if you can get away with it. It can also be difficult to prove the difference between a complicated pricing scheme and anti-competitive behavior.
Also, by your definition...
<car analogy>
If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighborhood, and someone tells me it will get stolen, then they are fearmongering? Because it is illegal to steal cars?
</car analogy>
Or am I misinterpreting your definition of "fearmongering"?
Not really. Just makes gold seem very expensive.
First, the bandwidth allocated to high and low priority remains the same as it is now.
I disagree with you there. The internet is constantly changing. What is good now will not necessarily be good in the future. Also, how do you handle new types of traffic? What really needs to be done is to make it illegal for an ISP to own content or to partner with someone who owns content (eliminate conflict of interest). But a stopgap could be to have the FCC monitor their traffic shaping and make sure it is fair.
Second, the priority is for type of traffic not source of traffic.
Completely agree with that one.
Last time I checked, it was not illegal to download p0rn. Why are you lumping it in with illegal activities?
And yes, there are illegal ways of downloading p0rn (copyrighted or underage). But, regardless of the ethical considerations, there is no law against downloading a video of consenting adults engaged in sexual activities. (At least, no federal law that I know of. I am sure some of the more conservative states have laws against it)
I agree. But I do not think it is similar to this case. The reason why deregulation helped in air travel is because there were many competing companies, so the market was able to "self-regulate" because people would vote with their pocketbooks. ISPs are different because there is currently a monopoly in most areas of the country, so there is no market to "self-regulate" itself. There are only the monopolies (or duopolies), which do not have the incentive to self-regulate.
I have no problem with them giving preferential treatment to different types of internet traffic. I do that within my own network (QOS on a WRT54GL running Tomato). I do not see why an ISP should not have the same right. It allows them to give better service to their customers. But, I do not think they should be able to hobble a protocol without oversight. And because, as a content distributor, Comcast has an interest users having less access to content online, and they are in most areas a monopoly in providing internet service, I believe regulatory oversight is necessary. Should Comcast have the right to give different protocols different priorities to provide their customers with a better service? Absolutely. Should Comcast have the right to give different protocols different priorities to give their other divisions a competitive advantage? Absolutely not. The problem is that there are no black and white rules that can define the difference, so you need a governmental agency that can react quickly to close loopholes in its regulations.
The whitehat team that found it told Palm about it before 1.4 was released and did not publish the exploit until it had been patched. I don't think they should get punished publicity-wise because they decided to follow ethical practices.
OTOH, if the cow is confined to the treadmill, you could just stick a tube up its ass and collect the methane and make even more power with it.
Whenever anyone comes out with a new way of making energy, then someone always says "but that is less efficient than x". 'x' usually being coal or nuclear or gas. But, how do you measure efficiency? If you have to have the inputs anyway (the cow has to eat) then they are already lost. This guy is not saying that we should breed more cows so that we can make electricity with them. So, we are just using energy that would have been wasted otherwise. Efficiency -> infinity. Same goes for the waste (solid and methane). It was going to happen anyway, why should you not get as much benefit as possible from it. Actually, if the cow can get exercise (by being on the treadmill), it might not mind so much having a collection method attached to its hindparts to collect the wastes (and maybe produce even more power from the methane).
and a cow that walks that much definitely eats a lot more than a cow that grazes the pasture or is kept in a stable without much room to move.
Are you sure? How much is a lot more? What benefits do you get from the cow getting exercise?
And besides I think there are much more cattle-friendly ways to exercise your cow.
I am sure there are. As there are more efficient ways to produce power. But, if you are in the business of making a profit, then compromises have to be made. The benefits might outweigh the costs.
Now, I am not saying that I think this is necessarily a good idea. But, I think it is has enough potential that it is worth taking a second look.
That is actually a business model that most people don't acknowledge. Open Source software is very rarely profitable by itself. But, if you are not in the software business, then it can make very good business sense. For example, say you create an innovative piece of hardware (for example a phone). You could license software from another company, but that will cut into your profit. You could create the software yourself, but creating software is not cheap, especially if you are trying to make quality software. Or, you could open source the software. You still invest money into the open source project. But you get more "bang for your buck" because the community is finding and fixing bugs for you. And, you make your profit off of the hardware. Good software means more value for the consumer so they buy more of your hardware and your company makes more money.
The key is to use OSS to add value but have a normal product that you sell. The value added from the OSS will likely end up in your pocket.
Not really.... the odds were in his favor.
A lot of Americans got $8000 back because they bought a house. Also, buying a house gets you a lot more deductions. I ended up getting about $10K back. So, this year might not be the best to get fired up over people getting large refunds.
...overgrown iPhone, minus the phone
Apple calls that an iPad.
I think it is pretty easy to differentiate between spam and not-spam. If the person sending the unsolicited mail tries to obfuscate how or from where they are sending the mail, then it is spam. If it is a company that clearly lists who they are, then they can be held liable (whether by being sued or by public opinion) for what they send out. There is no reason for law enforcement to get involved if the civil sector can sort it out. If, on the other hand, there is no reasonable way to trace the unsolicited email back to a person, they are trying to limit the ability of the civil sector to deal with them, so law enforcement should get involved.
But, that is just my opinion.