they were barely holding california's power supply together, then deregulation came in and lobotomized them
Nah, you just don't have the proper faith. Deregulation only fails because we don't go far enough. If deregulating industry A screws the consumers and deregulating industry B screws the consumers, it must be that if we deregulate all industries, it will help the consumer...
Deregulations has been a long-term failure in each of the industries in which we've tried it since the late 1970s (with, admittedly, the partial exception of the telecom industry, where at least prices have generally come down -- although lack of vigorous oversight has allowed the re-emergence of local monopolies). Business clamors for it and certain elements in the government eagerly give it to them. But those same elements don't believe in spending dime one on enforcement of the associated conditions, and so the model collapses. Then we're left with the same old monopolies, but now they don't have any silly Public Utilities Commission breathing down their necks and "hampering their efficiency" with quaint oddities like fair practice regulations.
The deregulation zealots bring to mind Santaya, but I don't know which quote is more a propos: "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it"... or "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
Think of how much better everything will be if you get such a law passed.
GM can give away granny's retirement fund to the poor people in the inner cities without fear of suit.
Wal-Mart can give away all of its shareholder's (many (most?) of them employees) savings to save the penguins in Antarctica.
Oh, yes. Because the outcomes of the system we have now -- wherein CEOs cause granny's retirement fund to vanish into ether, or their employees' savings to disappear into the CEO's bank account -- are so much better.
In the world of business, there is no right and wrong in the moral sense, only "right" as in following the law and making money
No. In the world of business we've had people saying "there is no right and wrong". They've been saying it loudly. They've been saying it monotonously. They've been saying it for, oh, about forty years in strength.
But they're wrong. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Simply denying the existence of something doesn't in fact make it cease to exist. And failing to recognize the ethics of a situations doesn't mean there aren't any. We'e beginning to see the fallout in the corporate world when the basic principles of ethics and fair play are systemically violated...
If something really is groundbreakingly simple to implement, then by it's nature it is something that can be discovered with little resources.
And since big research groups have more resources to throw at problems, they could in principle find more of these "little resource" breakthroughs. And since they have many people wokring on the field, they're more liekly to come across the low-hanging fruit. What happened to all our proponents of "many eyes makes bugs shallow"?
It's not to say that a major effect can't be discovered by one guy working in his lab. But it's not the way to bet.
Some day, one of you discount card users is gonna get a notice from your health insurance about a premium increase because they know that you buy a gallon of Rocky Road icecream every week. Trust me -- it will happen some day!
Indeed, I'm counting on it. Whenever these stories hit, I am secretly glad... because eventually, some company is going to cross the line and do something that pisses off Joe Sixpack and Jane Q. Public. And then we'll see the needed cultural and legal reaction.
Face it. In an Internet-linked society, privacy is gone. We need to stop pretending we can maintain it and start discussing, rationally, how to provide the transparency that is the only remedy for the Panopticon.
By the way, since the water company knows how much you paid for last month's bill, so does your bank -- or at least, it soon will. Even if you attempt to become a "blank" and drop off the radar, the information collected by different entities can and will be thrown together. You will make a mark as you move through society and anyone sufficiently interested will be able to follow you. And if everyone sticks his head in the sand and pretends that makes him safe -- if we don't build a social consensus on what is and more importantly what is not an acceptable use for massed data -- then the ability to track even the blanks will become cheaper and more widespread.
I really don't understand the rage on slashdot about this. The two sets offer different things and it's entirely possible that for some people, they offer enough value to justify the combined price. (I'll admit to being one of those people.) As has been mentioned, this isn't some underhanded, backroom thing -- "Aha, now that they've bought the lame first version, let's slip out an enhanced one and get their money again!". The producers have been extremely public about the plan. You haven't been "suckered" into buying a disc and then seeing it replaced a few weeks later.
Believe me, I know the anger people feel. I'm one of the chumps who bought the Tron bare-bones CD virtually the day before Disney announced the two-disc enhanced version. And I'm steamed about that, because the second release is a proper superset of the first -- the entire first release (which was essentially just the movie) is contained in the second.
But that's not the case here. Not only have I been told, upfront, that there is a later set coming. I also know that the second set is not just a proper superset of the first. The first contains things that the second won't. So my value is not negated.
For the casual fan (and believe it or not, there are a lot of casual LOTR fans), the August release is what they expect: A faithful reproduction of their moviegoing experience, with some typical extras thrown on as is de rigeur. For the hardcore fan, the November release is what they desire: The extra scenes, some more background, a wealth of detail. And the really, truly diehard fanatic can simply consider this a single, 6-disc set that happens to be released in two parts but has all the things a diehard fanatic would want: the theatrical movie, a "director's cut", a Two Towers preview, behind-the-scenes footage, background detail, audio commentary.
To my eye, these guys are the first in Hollywood to realize that the DVD market is not homogenous -- to not treat everyone as the lowest common demographic. They're giving people options rather than making one dictatorial decision. I think it's a development we should applaud, not attack.
(Aside: Note that what transforms this from an underhanded marketing ploy to a consumer-friendly menu of options is the fact that all three discs were announced simultaneously, putting information into the hands of the consumers and empowering us to make an intelligent choice. That's perhaps the most important lesson of the current age: Freely-available information empowers the citizenry.)
Let's all remember that the DMCA is a law specifying that circumvention of encryption in order to access copyrighted material is a crime.
That sounds nice. A shame it isn't true. The DMCA outlaws the employment of any technology that circumvents "access control mechanisms". It does not specify what constitutes an access control mechanism. If the DRM scheme involves back-authentication to the distributor and you block that, you could conceivably be violating the DMCA.
Now, are you? Is it clear? Of course not. The DMCA is an overly broad and intentionally vague law. Exactly what falls under it has yet to be settled in court -- possibly because the people who might conceivably use the DMCA seem uneager to have it test in court. A properly cynical person might even suspect that they are afraid to have it tested in court and prefer to use the threat of it.
No advocate of free markets would argue that a company's business model should be enforced by government guns.
Simply not true. There are some free-market advocates who regard intellectual output as property -- I know because they, too, sometimes post here -- and thus would see the actions of the *AA groups as merely attempts to protect their property. And almost all of those advocates would argue that property holders have the right, indeed, the obligation to aggressively protect their property via the courts, and that the government's (perhaps sole) legitimate purpose is to safeguard property and enforce contracts. These are not arguments I'm making up; they're arguments posted in this forum before.
Look, the "content producer" spent millions upon millions of dollars so that you can enjoy their content in your home for cheap.
Oh, yes, I am sure that Disney spent the millions of dollars for the betterment of all humankind, without any thought for the hundreds of millions they'd make from selling the DVD...
The issue isn't really the FBI warning (though I don't like being lectured every time I play a DVD). The point is, Disney and some others put commercials on that track. I wasn't intending to buy a commercial and I shouldn't be forced to watch it.
"Ah-hah!" say the rabid free marketeers. "Disney spent that money on the expectation that you would watch the commercial. Without the added economic benefit of that commercial, they would have had to raise the price to meet the economic expectation of profit. As it is, they count that 'forced eyeball' time as part of the profit, meaning they can sell it for less cash."
Bull dinky. If that's the case, then the commercial is also a cost (to me) and should be disclosed on the box, before I pay for the thing. Otherwise, it's fraud. In other words, there's a difference between "costs $20" and "costs $20 and two minutes of forced commercial viewing". My time is valuable, at least to me, and I shouldn't be bilked out of it.
But seriously, isn't this the current American business model when you get in trouble, buy off the politicians
No, no, the really successful model is to buy the politicians before you get into trouble:
Disney and the Pillage the Public Domain Act, er, the Copyright Term Extension Act;
software companies and UCITA;
Hollywood and the DMCA
The only trouble is, the shelf life of a politician is pretty short: six years for a senator and only two for a representative. You have to make sure you renew or you might not get your money's worth...
The other problem with killing First Sale / Fair use is that its unlikely juries will nulify the strict interpretation since Americans do consider it your right to change your copy.
It's not so clear to me. Firstly, lots of these cases end up in front of judges, not juries. Secondly, many people react emotionally to charges that someone is a "pirate". I'm not sure a reasoned argument would get through.
I use Fortran, C, Ada95, and Ocaml interchangeably for different tasks.
If you use them for different. distinct tasks, as this and the rest of your comment implies, then you are clearly not using them interchangably. That would mean you don't think that the languages have different strengths and weaknesses.
Sorry, it's the middle of summer and I haven't had any student papers to fill my vocab-nazi quota.:)
Still I'd tend to think that this act in particular falls under fair usage;
Actually, this isn't Fair Use. It's something else, called "the Doctrine of First Sale". First Sale says that a publisher's control over a particular copy of a book ends once the publisher makes a "first sale" -- i.e., sells that copy to anyone. After the book has been sold, the person buying it can do just about anything (except distribute copies of it) and the publisher can't say "boo". That's why it's legal to sell used books. It's also why public libraries are legal.
From the original article, this usage (editing copies for someone) falls easily under First Sale. We don't have some third party company editing the films and reselling them. We have a third party company taking an already purchased tape and editing out the bits the person doesn't want.
The real question is, what happens when such a person buys a DVD? Will the third-party company be guilty of violating the DMCA by ripping the disc, editing out the bits, and burning a new one? I suspect the answer is "Yes" -- which means that the DMCA kills First Sale for digital media. Some will argue that was one of the points of the DMCA, though certainly not one to which the MPAA would ever admit.
What is special about Four Corners is exactly that there is nothing special. The mid-US states are amazing in the political undertone. Look, those borders were drawn by some guys with a pencil and straightedge. No natural fortification. No concern for defensible borders. No historical or trade mandates. What a wonderful thing to break free of that mindset! Those lines were drawn for administrative convenience only.
the property owners often refuse access to the survey crews
It amazes me people can refuse access. Even if you believe in the virtual sancitity of private property you own, until the survey is done, you don't know you own it. Couldn't the state argue that, to know where your "denial" begins, they need to get on your land anyway?
For that matter, say Farmer Johnson thinks the well is on his land. Can't he grant access for the survey team to walk the perimeter of his land, and then see where the well ends up?
at the current time they have a large amount of legal precedent
Do they? It'd be interesting to see a nice summary of the actual precedents, instead of the many legal threats that get bandied about.
For example, MS could very easily steal open source software, and if we tried to take them to court on it (assuming we had the money to do so) they could easily say "We never saw this GPL, we were not required to accept it, and we don't...
Well, since they claim not to accept the given license, and since they haven't negotiated a substitute, then under copyright law they have no rights whatsoever to distribute either the code or any derivative work from the code. So they lose, anyway.
they were not required to accept it, and frankly they don't
Well, then, under copyright law, since by their own admission they don't have a license from the creator, they cannot copy or distribute the program or derivative works made from that program.
Just because an argument is "dangerous" doesn't make it untrue.
If the argument is in favor of a course of action, then certainly the fact that it is dangerous is valid. Here, the many-generations-removed poster was arguing, "Corporations are made of many different people, so you can't hold them responsible for every position taken by someone in that corporation". (More specifically, "Some schmoe lawyer said they'd use the DMCA but it didn't 'really' represent HP's position, so we should cut them some slack".)
My argument is, it is dangerous to take that attitude, because that attitude will grant too much opportunity for a company to simply disavow policies that prove unpopular and thus pay no consequence for espousing them to begin with. Whether or not corporations "really are" multifaceted, it is reasonable and, I feel, imperative to insist they speak with one voice and be held accountable for what people at the company do or say. Of course that would require actual discipline at the company. It's easier to just say, "Oh, that wasn't us. Sorry."
Parallel argument: Laws limit the speed at which you can drive. We all know that some people are going to speed. Do we throw our hands up and say, "Oh, well, there'll always be someone who'll speed, so it's no big deal if it happens?" Of course not. We establish legal guidelines for responsibility and we enforce them. And if, say, a delivery company is found to consistently employ people who violate traffic laws, I think most people would say, "Well, that company is at fault and should pay a price." -- even though there are many different people working there and that the actual speeding is being done by someone low on the power chain.
So, to repeat: When arguing for courses of action, an "argument from adverse consequences" is not only valid but in fact demanded. Your fallacy was applying rules about arguments of fact to an argument of action.
They're probably thinking that if everyone were skilled, then enemies would also become equally skilled, or that one of our own people would turn out to be a Timothy McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald.
If you distrust the people who protect you, you will be protected by untrustworthy people.
Of course, its also possible that the lawyers made the thread with an impressive-sounding law, and retracted it when they noticed that the law couldn't quite be stretched to do what they thought it could.
Indeed, it's even possible that the lawyers made the threat fully aware the law would likely fail them but knowing as well that the threat of a DMCA action is often enough to get results...
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, you just don't have the proper faith. Deregulation only fails because we don't go far enough. If deregulating industry A screws the consumers and deregulating industry B screws the consumers, it must be that if we deregulate all industries, it will help the consumer...
Deregulations has been a long-term failure in each of the industries in which we've tried it since the late 1970s (with, admittedly, the partial exception of the telecom industry, where at least prices have generally come down -- although lack of vigorous oversight has allowed the re-emergence of local monopolies). Business clamors for it and certain elements in the government eagerly give it to them. But those same elements don't believe in spending dime one on enforcement of the associated conditions, and so the model collapses. Then we're left with the same old monopolies, but now they don't have any silly Public Utilities Commission breathing down their necks and "hampering their efficiency" with quaint oddities like fair practice regulations.
The deregulation zealots bring to mind Santaya, but I don't know which quote is more a propos: "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it"
Oh, yes. Because the outcomes of the system we have now -- wherein CEOs cause granny's retirement fund to vanish into ether, or their employees' savings to disappear into the CEO's bank account -- are so much better.
No. In the world of business we've had people saying "there is no right and wrong". They've been saying it loudly. They've been saying it monotonously. They've been saying it for, oh, about forty years in strength.
But they're wrong. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Simply denying the existence of something doesn't in fact make it cease to exist. And failing to recognize the ethics of a situations doesn't mean there aren't any. We'e beginning to see the fallout in the corporate world when the basic principles of ethics and fair play are systemically violated...
And since big research groups have more resources to throw at problems, they could in principle find more of these "little resource" breakthroughs. And since they have many people wokring on the field, they're more liekly to come across the low-hanging fruit. What happened to all our proponents of "many eyes makes bugs shallow"?
It's not to say that a major effect can't be discovered by one guy working in his lab. But it's not the way to bet.
Indeed, I'm counting on it. Whenever these stories hit, I am secretly glad
Face it. In an Internet-linked society, privacy is gone. We need to stop pretending we can maintain it and start discussing, rationally, how to provide the transparency that is the only remedy for the Panopticon.
By the way, since the water company knows how much you paid for last month's bill, so does your bank -- or at least, it soon will. Even if you attempt to become a "blank" and drop off the radar, the information collected by different entities can and will be thrown together. You will make a mark as you move through society and anyone sufficiently interested will be able to follow you. And if everyone sticks his head in the sand and pretends that makes him safe -- if we don't build a social consensus on what is and more importantly what is not an acceptable use for massed data -- then the ability to track even the blanks will become cheaper and more widespread.
Believe me, I know the anger people feel. I'm one of the chumps who bought the Tron bare-bones CD virtually the day before Disney announced the two-disc enhanced version. And I'm steamed about that, because the second release is a proper superset of the first -- the entire first release (which was essentially just the movie) is contained in the second.
But that's not the case here. Not only have I been told, upfront, that there is a later set coming. I also know that the second set is not just a proper superset of the first. The first contains things that the second won't. So my value is not negated.
For the casual fan (and believe it or not, there are a lot of casual LOTR fans), the August release is what they expect: A faithful reproduction of their moviegoing experience, with some typical extras thrown on as is de rigeur. For the hardcore fan, the November release is what they desire: The extra scenes, some more background, a wealth of detail. And the really, truly diehard fanatic can simply consider this a single, 6-disc set that happens to be released in two parts but has all the things a diehard fanatic would want: the theatrical movie, a "director's cut", a Two Towers preview, behind-the-scenes footage, background detail, audio commentary.
To my eye, these guys are the first in Hollywood to realize that the DVD market is not homogenous -- to not treat everyone as the lowest common demographic. They're giving people options rather than making one dictatorial decision. I think it's a development we should applaud, not attack.
(Aside: Note that what transforms this from an underhanded marketing ploy to a consumer-friendly menu of options is the fact that all three discs were announced simultaneously, putting information into the hands of the consumers and empowering us to make an intelligent choice. That's perhaps the most important lesson of the current age: Freely-available information empowers the citizenry.)
That sounds nice. A shame it isn't true. The DMCA outlaws the employment of any technology that circumvents "access control mechanisms". It does not specify what constitutes an access control mechanism. If the DRM scheme involves back-authentication to the distributor and you block that, you could conceivably be violating the DMCA.
Now, are you? Is it clear? Of course not. The DMCA is an overly broad and intentionally vague law. Exactly what falls under it has yet to be settled in court -- possibly because the people who might conceivably use the DMCA seem uneager to have it test in court. A properly cynical person might even suspect that they are afraid to have it tested in court and prefer to use the threat of it.
What? And waste an entire byte on a silent "e"? ")
Simply not true. There are some free-market advocates who regard intellectual output as property -- I know because they, too, sometimes post here -- and thus would see the actions of the *AA groups as merely attempts to protect their property. And almost all of those advocates would argue that property holders have the right, indeed, the obligation to aggressively protect their property via the courts, and that the government's (perhaps sole) legitimate purpose is to safeguard property and enforce contracts. These are not arguments I'm making up; they're arguments posted in this forum before.
Oh, yes, I am sure that Disney spent the millions of dollars for the betterment of all humankind, without any thought for the hundreds of millions they'd make from selling the DVD...
The issue isn't really the FBI warning (though I don't like being lectured every time I play a DVD). The point is, Disney and some others put commercials on that track. I wasn't intending to buy a commercial and I shouldn't be forced to watch it.
"Ah-hah!" say the rabid free marketeers. "Disney spent that money on the expectation that you would watch the commercial. Without the added economic benefit of that commercial, they would have had to raise the price to meet the economic expectation of profit. As it is, they count that 'forced eyeball' time as part of the profit, meaning they can sell it for less cash."
Bull dinky. If that's the case, then the commercial is also a cost (to me) and should be disclosed on the box, before I pay for the thing. Otherwise, it's fraud. In other words, there's a difference between "costs $20" and "costs $20 and two minutes of forced commercial viewing". My time is valuable, at least to me, and I shouldn't be bilked out of it.
Oh, yes, the sort of students who would do this or this is the very paragon of seriousness...
No, no, the really successful model is to buy the politicians before you get into trouble:
The only trouble is, the shelf life of a politician is pretty short: six years for a senator and only two for a representative. You have to make sure you renew or you might not get your money's worth...
Sorry, it's the middle of summer and I haven't had any student papers to fill my vocab-nazi quota. :)
From the original article, this usage (editing copies for someone) falls easily under First Sale. We don't have some third party company editing the films and reselling them. We have a third party company taking an already purchased tape and editing out the bits the person doesn't want.
The real question is, what happens when such a person buys a DVD ? Will the third-party company be guilty of violating the DMCA by ripping the disc, editing out the bits, and burning a new one? I suspect the answer is "Yes" -- which means that the DMCA kills First Sale for digital media. Some will argue that was one of the points of the DMCA, though certainly not one to which the MPAA would ever admit.
For that matter, say Farmer Johnson thinks the well is on his land. Can't he grant access for the survey team to walk the perimeter of his land, and then see where the well ends up?
My argument is, it is dangerous to take that attitude, because that attitude will grant too much opportunity for a company to simply disavow policies that prove unpopular and thus pay no consequence for espousing them to begin with. Whether or not corporations "really are" multifaceted, it is reasonable and, I feel, imperative to insist they speak with one voice and be held accountable for what people at the company do or say. Of course that would require actual discipline at the company. It's easier to just say, "Oh, that wasn't us. Sorry."
Parallel argument: Laws limit the speed at which you can drive. We all know that some people are going to speed. Do we throw our hands up and say, "Oh, well, there'll always be someone who'll speed, so it's no big deal if it happens?" Of course not. We establish legal guidelines for responsibility and we enforce them. And if, say, a delivery company is found to consistently employ people who violate traffic laws, I think most people would say, "Well, that company is at fault and should pay a price." -- even though there are many different people working there and that the actual speeding is being done by someone low on the power chain.
So, to repeat: When arguing for courses of action, an "argument from adverse consequences" is not only valid but in fact demanded. Your fallacy was applying rules about arguments of fact to an argument of action.