>>>because he can't own the CONTENT on that disc, that his property rights are being somehow erroded.
If I can't buy a CD or DVD with software, and then resell the Disc to somebody else in the used market, then that's precisely correct - My property rights ARE being eroded. It should be self-evident to anyone with a brain that if I exchange $50 for a Software CD, I ought to be able to change my mind, and convert that CD back to the original 50 dollars by re-selling it to some other person. The idea that I'm stuck with the CD forever is bullshit.
>>>> Youtube pulled a video of mine I had rights to, and ignored the counterclaim I filed
Really?
That's interesting and effectively nullifies all these posters who claim "all you gotta do is file a counternotice". Doing that is pointless if the dot-com ignores it.
1. WB sends DMCA complaint 2. MySpace takes down content 3. Artist goes WTF and sends in a DMCA counter notice 4. MySpace restores the content.
5. WB sends ANOTHER takedown notice. 6. Myspace complies. 7. Artist sends a second counternotice. 8. Myspace ignores it. 9. (several months pass). We read the story.
>>>They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.
Correct. The flaw here is that these artists (and people in general) still think they own rights. They don't. The rights have been transferred to the corporations who, with the cooperation of Congress and other corporations, control everything. The artist doesn't own the song in the view of either WB or myspace, and that's why he can't stream it.
Yeah I know. It's only there temporarily, until I can decide if the stock market is going up-or-down. I don't want to buy stock, and then watch the market drop 1000 points next month. That would be depressing.
Other options like bonds or CDs are paying such lousy interest rates, that it's not even worth looking at them.
>>>I think it goes to show what being personally involved and affected can do to job performance at the [government]
You think it's coincidence that the roads leading into and out of D.C. are the smoothest in the whole nation? People in power fix what affects them directly, give a passing notice when constituents complain, and ignore all else. (Which is a good argument for why power & politicians should be concentrated *at home*, rather than 2000 miles away in some central capital.)
See Isaac Asimov for the exact quote, but it basically says robots may not harm humans. Because the law is encoded *in the hardware* there's no way that it can be altered.
What you're basically saying is that the Dixie Chicks were censored by the *secondary* level of government which we commonly call "the corporations". Because the corporations hold so much power, they have the ability to make a music group disappear from American life, simply by refusing to stock their CDs.
We now see a similar thing happening with Glenn Beck, where the corporations are trying to yank him off the air. They hold enough power that they are virtually another level of government, and I would not be surprised if they succeeded.
>>>And the economic figures are all based on taxation - since libertarians have never met a tax they liked.
Not true. They like "use taxes" where you pay for a service when you use it. They cite the road/gasoline toll and the stamp tax as near-ideal forms of taxation. You use the service - you pay. You don't use the service - you don't pay. They consider that fair and reasonable.
And while some libertarians are almost anarchist in their views, they are still saner than those on the extreme-left who think they are entitled to sit on their asses all day, not do an hour of work, and raid their neighbors' wallets for cash, food stamps, or other freebie services. Now THAT'S radical. I don't think I'm entitled to buy myself a Civic and pass the bill to my neighors..... and yet these nutjobs on the left think that would be okay ("a car is a necessity of life").
>>>It's no better to say "if you can't prove it, it must be false".
Actually the way that scientific and logical inquiry works, the saying would be, "If you can't prove it, there's a possibility it might still be true, but until that happens it will be ignored." For example the theory that flies spontaneously generate from meat. There's a still a possibility that is true, but it's never been proven, so that theory has fallen to the wayside.
Plus it's been replaced by a much better theory (flies lay eggs; eggs hatch new flies).
This is why I've been pulling back from online banking and other online accounts. It makes no sense to leave half a million dollars sitting on the internet, with nothing to protect it except a password. I moved the money to a different account that can not be accessed unless I physically walk into the bank's building and display photo ID.
My grandmother used to watch the Thanksgiving Day parade, with the cheerleaders, and say, "That's horrible. They are practically negged! I can't believe they allow that."
False. You never heard of manslaughter? That's when somebody does not intentionally kill another human being, but they still get convicted for the crime. In this case Sony is guilty of violating an implied warranty of merchantability. Intent is irrelevant.
>>>The decent thing for Sony to do is pay up. However, they may not be legally required to do so
My understanding of the law, based upon the results from the Paypal case, is that agreements do not overrule State or National Law. You might sign an agreement that says "no warranty provided" but the consumer protection laws would nullify that agreement as invalid, and force the manufacturer to replace the broken hardware, or else face massive government-imposed fines.
And if that doesn't work, the customers can organize a boycott of all Sony products from now to the end of time. Sony might end-up the same place Circuit City is now.
>>>Every recent release I've gotten has not checked for a firmware revision
Maybe because you already had the latest revision? On my PSP when I bought the Final Fantasy 7 prequel, it checked the version number and refused to let me play until I updated the firmware. That would make it a forced upgrade (you can't return an opened game). If Sony uses that tactic for the PSP, it makes sense they'd do the same for the PS3.
Yes but they said the downloaded firmware would work, which is an implied warranty. The frakkers are responsible for any damage caused, just as surely as my mechanic is responsible if his "updates" break my car.
Well as some fool told me just an hour ago (quoting from memory), "You can always buy blank CDs... but you're not entitled to own the software on that CD." He made that argument for why we can't sell used software like Autodesk, MS Word 2003, or Final Fantasy 12.
The same stupid argument could be made by Sony in regards to the PS3, "You can always buy the blank hardware... but you don't own the software stored on that hardware. You only license the software."
I said it before and I'll say it again - they are stripping-away our property rights.
The CEOs of Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's Xbox division need to be shot in the head. That wouldn't solve current problems, but I can guarantee the NEXT CEO will bend-over backwards not to piss off the customers -- purely out of fear.
>>>a difference between nudity as such and nudity with a sexual connotation
Which basically means you can define ANY nudity as having a "sexual connotation". It's a slippery slope. For example I might just be taking videos of my vacation in Brazil (where the women and children wear little or nothing), but if my local District Attorney Harry Prude got a hold of it, he might label it "sexually explicit" and throw me in jail.
It is better to define nudity as just nudity, and therefore protected freedom of expression, until there's an actual sex act occurring. .
>>>isn't "playing doctor" intended to be more than simple nudity
Really? Man my neighbor Sally duped me! She told me "look but don't touch."
Watching that video with the "layers of skin and bone peeling away" reminded me of some classic 1980s games. Like the Intellivision's Microsurgeon - the power of 16-bit gaming baby! ;-) LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms_yLmub6PM
Good thing your childhood was in the past and not the present. Today's kids "play doctor" using cellphones, and they are getting charged with distributing child pornography. We just had another case yesterday where a girlfriend/boyfriend wanted to see each other naked, so they sent photos, and now they are charged with a crime. Ridiculous. If you can't even take a photos of your own body, then you no longer own it. You've become a serf.
Also a distinction should be made between simple nudity and sex. The latter is pornographic; the former is not. The view of a human body without clothes is not something to fear.
>>>when I was a kid, the humble flatbed scanner would have been well and truly in the realms of science fiction...
When I was a kid, the personal computer didn't even exist yet. I was about 7 when people first started getting PCs (Apples, Ataris, Tandy-Radio Shacks).
"Instead of actually playing with your kids, you could just look at video of them playing by themselves. And you'll smile knowing you only paid ten thousands dollars to do it." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrr7AZ9nCY
Slashdot Mirror
>>>because he can't own the CONTENT on that disc, that his property rights are being somehow erroded.
If I can't buy a CD or DVD with software, and then resell the Disc to somebody else in the used market, then that's precisely correct - My property rights ARE being eroded. It should be self-evident to anyone with a brain that if I exchange $50 for a Software CD, I ought to be able to change my mind, and convert that CD back to the original 50 dollars by re-selling it to some other person. The idea that I'm stuck with the CD forever is bullshit.
>>>> Youtube pulled a video of mine I had rights to, and ignored the counterclaim I filed
Really?
That's interesting and effectively nullifies all these posters who claim "all you gotta do is file a counternotice". Doing that is pointless if the dot-com ignores it.
1. WB sends DMCA complaint
2. MySpace takes down content
3. Artist goes WTF and sends in a DMCA counter notice
4. MySpace restores the content.
5. WB sends ANOTHER takedown notice.
6. Myspace complies.
7. Artist sends a second counternotice.
8. Myspace ignores it.
9. (several months pass). We read the story.
>>>They care about their wallet, art and artists be damned.
Correct. The flaw here is that these artists (and people in general) still think they own rights. They don't. The rights have been transferred to the corporations who, with the cooperation of Congress and other corporations, control everything. The artist doesn't own the song in the view of either WB or myspace, and that's why he can't stream it.
Yeah I know. It's only there temporarily, until I can decide if the stock market is going up-or-down. I don't want to buy stock, and then watch the market drop 1000 points next month. That would be depressing.
Other options like bonds or CDs are paying such lousy interest rates, that it's not even worth looking at them.
>>>I think it goes to show what being personally involved and affected can do to job performance at the [government]
You think it's coincidence that the roads leading into and out of D.C. are the smoothest in the whole nation? People in power fix what affects them directly, give a passing notice when constituents complain, and ignore all else. (Which is a good argument for why power & politicians should be concentrated *at home*, rather than 2000 miles away in some central capital.)
See Isaac Asimov for the exact quote, but it basically says robots may not harm humans. Because the law is encoded *in the hardware* there's no way that it can be altered.
What you're basically saying is that the Dixie Chicks were censored by the *secondary* level of government which we commonly call "the corporations". Because the corporations hold so much power, they have the ability to make a music group disappear from American life, simply by refusing to stock their CDs.
We now see a similar thing happening with Glenn Beck, where the corporations are trying to yank him off the air. They hold enough power that they are virtually another level of government, and I would not be surprised if they succeeded.
>>>And the economic figures are all based on taxation - since libertarians have never met a tax they liked.
Not true. They like "use taxes" where you pay for a service when you use it. They cite the road/gasoline toll and the stamp tax as near-ideal forms of taxation. You use the service - you pay. You don't use the service - you don't pay. They consider that fair and reasonable.
And while some libertarians are almost anarchist in their views, they are still saner than those on the extreme-left who think they are entitled to sit on their asses all day, not do an hour of work, and raid their neighbors' wallets for cash, food stamps, or other freebie services. Now THAT'S radical. I don't think I'm entitled to buy myself a Civic and pass the bill to my neighors..... and yet these nutjobs on the left think that would be okay ("a car is a necessity of life").
(shaking head)
>>>Winter comes every X moons, and is likely to come again, we better store up food for
Actually that was a provable theory. Observe; record; notice a pattern; predict winter will arrive in a repeating cycle. That's primitive science.
>>>It's no better to say "if you can't prove it, it must be false".
Actually the way that scientific and logical inquiry works, the saying would be, "If you can't prove it, there's a possibility it might still be true, but until that happens it will be ignored." For example the theory that flies spontaneously generate from meat. There's a still a possibility that is true, but it's never been proven, so that theory has fallen to the wayside.
Plus it's been replaced by a much better theory (flies lay eggs; eggs hatch new flies).
This is why I've been pulling back from online banking and other online accounts. It makes no sense to leave half a million dollars sitting on the internet, with nothing to protect it except a password. I moved the money to a different account that can not be accessed unless I physically walk into the bank's building and display photo ID.
My grandmother used to watch the Thanksgiving Day parade, with the cheerleaders, and say, "That's horrible. They are practically negged! I can't believe they allow that."
(rolls eyes)
>>>Crimes require intent
False. You never heard of manslaughter? That's when somebody does not intentionally kill another human being, but they still get convicted for the crime. In this case Sony is guilty of violating an implied warranty of merchantability. Intent is irrelevant.
>>>The decent thing for Sony to do is pay up. However, they may not be legally required to do so
My understanding of the law, based upon the results from the Paypal case, is that agreements do not overrule State or National Law. You might sign an agreement that says "no warranty provided" but the consumer protection laws would nullify that agreement as invalid, and force the manufacturer to replace the broken hardware, or else face massive government-imposed fines.
And if that doesn't work, the customers can organize a boycott of all Sony products from now to the end of time.
Sony might end-up the same place Circuit City is now.
>>>Every recent release I've gotten has not checked for a firmware revision
Maybe because you already had the latest revision? On my PSP when I bought the Final Fantasy 7 prequel, it checked the version number and refused to let me play until I updated the firmware. That would make it a forced upgrade (you can't return an opened game). If Sony uses that tactic for the PSP, it makes sense they'd do the same for the PS3.
>>>So technically, Sony didn't break it. You did.
Yes but they said the downloaded firmware would work, which is an implied warranty. The frakkers are responsible for any damage caused, just as surely as my mechanic is responsible if his "updates" break my car.
Well as some fool told me just an hour ago (quoting from memory), "You can always buy blank CDs... but you're not entitled to own the software on that CD." He made that argument for why we can't sell used software like Autodesk, MS Word 2003, or Final Fantasy 12.
The same stupid argument could be made by Sony in regards to the PS3, "You can always buy the blank hardware... but you don't own the software stored on that hardware. You only license the software."
I said it before and I'll say it again - they are stripping-away our property rights.
The CEOs of Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's Xbox division need to be shot in the head. That wouldn't solve current problems, but I can guarantee the NEXT CEO will bend-over backwards not to piss off the customers -- purely out of fear.
>>>a difference between nudity as such and nudity with a sexual connotation
Which basically means you can define ANY nudity as having a "sexual connotation". It's a slippery slope. For example I might just be taking videos of my vacation in Brazil (where the women and children wear little or nothing), but if my local District Attorney Harry Prude got a hold of it, he might label it "sexually explicit" and throw me in jail.
It is better to define nudity as just nudity, and therefore protected freedom of expression, until there's an actual sex act occurring.
.
>>>isn't "playing doctor" intended to be more than simple nudity
Really? Man my neighbor Sally duped me! She told me "look but don't touch."
Watching that video with the "layers of skin and bone peeling away" reminded me of some classic 1980s games. Like the Intellivision's Microsurgeon - the power of 16-bit gaming baby! ;-) LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms_yLmub6PM
IBM PC variant (check out the amazing 2 color graphics and hi-fidelity "beep" sound) ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5azQdQR35E
Commodore Amiga variant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAR_c89TjEc
>>>I always preferred to play doctor instead.
Good thing your childhood was in the past and not the present. Today's kids "play doctor" using cellphones, and they are getting charged with distributing child pornography. We just had another case yesterday where a girlfriend/boyfriend wanted to see each other naked, so they sent photos, and now they are charged with a crime. Ridiculous. If you can't even take a photos of your own body, then you no longer own it. You've become a serf.
Also a distinction should be made between simple nudity and sex.
The latter is pornographic; the former is not.
The view of a human body without clothes is not something to fear.
>>>when I was a kid, the humble flatbed scanner would have been well and truly in the realms of science fiction...
When I was a kid, the personal computer didn't even exist yet. I was about 7 when people first started getting PCs (Apples, Ataris, Tandy-Radio Shacks).
>>> $10,000
Hey! What a coincidence. That's how much I spent keeping my Mac upgraded over the last ten years. (ducks a spitball). I kid, I kid.
"Instead of actually playing with your kids, you could just look at video of them playing by themselves. And you'll smile knowing you only paid ten thousands dollars to do it." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrr7AZ9nCY