The Strangler strikes agains ..Re:A little late...
on
Live from Iran, Film88
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal?
I just robbed this bank and killed this girl. Does this make me a criminal?
Ah, yes, the same brand of nuclear hyperbole that brought us "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" (Jack Valenti, head drone of the MPAA). I've learned to be suspicious when someone's argument seems to depend on conflating the action in question with some horrible, nasty action, all out of proportion. I worry when people make their point by insisting on emotionally-charged words with only dubious links (if any) to the topic at hand.
But then again, what do you expect from an industry that believes "copying a piece of intellectual output with the approval of a copyright holder" is precisely the same as "rape and pillage on the high seas"?
the path of civil disobediance is not to copy movies en masse... Such self serving actions do not look very good in the harsh light of the courtroom
I think you missed the point of civil disobediance.
Well, yes and no. Most people crying "civil disobedience" these days -- for intelluctual output or other reasons -- seem to think it's a way to legitamize their selfish acts. In true civil disobedience, you wouldn't hide what you did behind anonymizers, proxies, or spoofs. You would want the MPAA to come knocking on your door, so that the law could be challenged and -- more importantly -- exposed. In civil disobedience, you welcome the legal penalties as badges of legitimacy.
I despise the "free" software movement, or as you more accurately called it, the "software libre" movement. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I'll rant and rave and propagandize and try to convince people that it's misguided, that it's Bad and Wrong. I oppose it with everything I've got.
Wow. I'm used to people saying that free software is a bad business model and an unsound practice. I don't think I've ever encountered such a vehement, emotion-charged stand, though. In all seriousness, why do you "hate it, haite, hate it" so much?
I can see not wanting to be forced into that model. But if people want to follow it on their own, what's the problem?
Granted Microsoft has not always been forthcoming with security alerts but hell even since 98 with WindowsUpdate you can more or less stay on top of these.
Sure, when Microsoft finally gets around to releasing a patch. They've known about this explot for nearly three weeks. I disbelieve that mozilla, for example, would leave it in place this long.
The reason there are aren't reports of security holes in gopher code in other browers is that no-one has looked, not that the holes don't exist.
Logic error: Unless you can provide documentation indicating a successful gopher exploit in, say, Opera, all that you can validly say is
The reason there are aren't reports of security holes in gopher code in other browers is that no-one has looked, not necessarily that the holes don't exist.
It is logically quite possible that Opera, or Mozilla, or whatever is in fact secure, since we have no evidence to the contrary. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... there might be a hole in Opera, or whatever. But since you're making a positive definite claim -- that such a hole does exist -- the burden of proof is on you.
they present you with a description of the program (so you can decide whether to record this episode of DS9), a genre (so you can record all Sci-Fi program), actors (at least in the case of TiVo, so you can set up a "wishlist" to record all shows with Avery Brooks), a "rerun" flag (so you don't get 15 copies of the same episode), etc, etc..
I actually don't think I'd use those features, so my original post stands. But it doesn't matter: Not a one of those is missing from the Yahoo! listings.
And of course those sites pay for the info at some point. (One could argue that users of public spectrum should have to provide this info as a cost of doing business, but....) And maybe they'd drop the service or use account logins or whatever.
But why do the people providing the hardware also have to be the ones providing the programming info? Other than locking you into their business plan, of course. From the consumer's point of view, it doesn't make sense. With XML looming, one imagines a working group could define an open standard for TV info, and let competition come to the service market. And if several PVR makers agreed to utilize the open standard, they could leverage that freedom (I believe) into real cash.
And it requires you to drill down on every link, which is not how you want an automated update to work.
Fair enough, except way back in 1994, I wrote a script that pretended to be a Netscape browser and read the day's schedule off TVguide.com... and I know next to nothing about the http protocols. If the info is out there and human-readable, then it can be automated.
If you want an absolute brain dead PVR, that may be all you need. But anyone who's used a TiVo won't use a brain dead PVR again - it'd be nearly as bad as going back to a VCR.
But I suspect that there is a large market for people who just want an enhanced VCR and who haven't yet become addicted:) to the TiVo features.
Interestingly enough, Napster filed for Chapter 11 protections today.
Proving that any company, no matter how small, can indeed be crushed by the combined might of an entrenched industry, no matter how unjusitified. Yay for our justice system.
And the guide data isn't free - you have to pay someone for it.
Umm, I use Yahoo!TV listings, and they're free. I don't use Replay or Tivo, so maybe I'm missing something. But I don't see why I'd need much more than program name and time.
I seriously doubt that a device designed to replace VCRs is going to shoot itself in the foot and actively scan your system each and every time you update it.
There have been a lot of people making similar claims -- "They're just CYAing. They don't intend to actually ever enforce these provisions." Bull-crap. Lawyers don't put in clauses for the fun of it. You can be sure that SONICblue's legal team pored over this and every word fully represents the intent of the company. If they never, ever meant to do this, they wouldn't bother reserving the right...
But what all of us agree upon is that within the boundaries of fair use, we should be able to do what we want with copyrighted material.
But SONICblue doesn't recognize any sort of "fair use" safe harbor:
Notwithstanding any term of this Agreement, ReplayTV has the absolute right to immediately suspend or terminate your account, and terminate this Agreement, if you... (c) infringe (or are alleged to infringe) upon the intellectual property rights of ReplayTV or any third party in your use in any way of the ReplayTV Service.
(emphasis added)
So you might be making Fair Use, but if the Copyright Cartel doesn't like it, phffft! $250 paperweight. Well, at least, when you demonstrate to SONICblue that your use was, indeed, a Fair Use case, they will apologize and reinstate the Service, right? Wrong:
You further agree that you will defend, indemnify and hold harmless ReplayTV and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or relating to any of the actions described above that would entitle ReplayTV to terminate this Agreement.
So no, this is not justifiable CYA. They're saying, "We know that our service could get you into a slapping match with the Copyright Cartel. And we don't want to fight that. But we really do want your money for as long as we can get it."
Peh. I was looking at getting one of these, but now I'll just look into building my own.
In other words, it's not obvious that nice businesses fail because they're nice. They might fail just because new businesses fail. Likewise, rotten companies get more press and more attention, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean there are more of them or that their rottenness enhances their survivability.
As for the rest, the code itself has infection length of 2132 bytes according to symantec, so it couldn't have been that much of a bear to code up, just a lot of knowledge.
Sure, like the final length of a virus reflects its complexity or difficulty at all. Ever enter, or even hear about, the obfuscated C contest? Getting a functional program in a small footprint is generally harder than producing a bloated monstrosity.
So if you develop a new format in India, how can any one forcibly put it into public domain?
People miss the point on intellectual output. By its very nature, it is already and automatically copiable and public. The state, through copyright law or patent law, agrees to offer artificial protections, so as to induce creators to create. This is a fiction we all agree to for social purposes.
A government can "force" a file format -- or a Disney movie, for that matter -- into the "public dmain" by simply not enforcing the copyright. Copyright is not a passive thing intrinsic to a creative work. It is an active, volitional thing that requires the complicity of the courts (and by extension the rest of the government) to be effective.
Look at what goes on in all the "pirate" nations (such as, say, the US in 1890).
Even if it is a law that applies to internal organization (as this one would be), it is the only official way a government can "state" that it will do something (and make sure that it will keep doing it in the next administration).
Actually, it could also just be an administrative rule or executive order. And the intent, of course, is to say not that a law be passed. The original poster was saying, the government need not mandate open, free, or shared formats. It votes with its purse... if the government -- a major economic engine -- insists on open formats, then vendors have a huge reason to adopt them.
And just as everyone is entitled to defend their opinion, I am entitled to join with millions like me and force my opinion into law.
Bzzzt. That's why we're not a direct democracy in the US... because sometimes the majority is wrong, and so the minority opinion is protected. The Founders deliberately carved out a safe harbor of opinion and even action, to guard against the "tyranny of the majority". There are certain limits beyond which no one -- not even the majority -- can trespass.
It does not matter if every single adult, but one, believes that pornography is wrong. That one is still entitled to view it if he/she so chooses. That's what we mean by "adult". It's also what we mean by "citizen". These are two words whose meanings have been so taffy-tortured and denatured that they are essentially noise to most people's ears.
Seems like the kids are the most important thing when people want things done, but when they disagree, kids are just another road-block to be stepped on.
No, it seems like the kids are the most important thing -- or rather, are heart-breakingly named as the most important thing -- whenever some people want to stick their noses into my private life. "Oh, think of the kids" is the common cry of the would-be Moral Regulator, because hey, who can argue with protecting kids? Of course no one -- and those screaming just hope you never notice that their proposal is not about kids at all.
Consider a world where the government -- or vocal self-appointed moral guardians -- decide a priori and for everyone what is moral and good, or immoral and banned... I think that doing anything to create such a world for our children is the worst kind of assault on them, on their morality, on their potential.
Draw for me the logical etymological chain from "rape and pillage on the open seas" to "copying of a work without permission of the creator". This isn't a natural evolution. The word was chosen specifically for its negative connotations.
Disclaimer: I've heard tell that "piracy" comes from "pirate radio", a term for certain stations that would broadcast unauthorized content from ships just outside the territorial limit. Since they're committing crime on the high seas (albeit copyright infringement, not rape and pillage), the metaphorical extensions seems OK... but it's been pushed way, way, way too far, and I would argue that this stretching of meanings is precisely to take advantage of the evil sounds of the word.
Everyone commits copyright infringement at some point, and most people try to stop others from infringing their copyrights.
If everyone, in the course of their normal living, infringes on copyright -- if even the most rabid anti-"pirate" mouthpiece out there infringes without blinking and without shame -- then perhaps... just perhaps... this is evidence that the whole copyright regime is a house of cards based upon fighting an unwinnable battle via an untenable strategy. If everyone think it's OK, what sense or meaning does it have to call it illegal?
This is not about defending porn. It's about defending a citizen's right to control his/her own access to information, some of which may be porn. It disturbs me to see how many people -- willfully or, worse, not -- miss the distinction and refuse to think at the right level of abstraction.
The question is, who determines what you see? You, or the government? And before you rant off about not wanting "your" tax dollars showing porn, let me state that I don't want any of my tax dollars supporting intrusive government-mandated censorship.
It's not his movie anymore. It's a part of the culture. How do I know? Because every time a new one is released, we have all those annoying "Making of..." clips wherein people breathlessly assert that it's a fundament of the culture.
You know what? Fame costs. Immanence costs. The price here is, Lucas no longer has sole claim to Star Wars. Legally of course he can do what he pleases... but he's still tinkering with a communal thing and had best be prepared for said community to revile him.
Leave them alone, George. Episode I proved that you have no clue what made Star Wars special. Stop destroying our past.
The thing that I came away with was not so much how lame tv must have looked back then (and as others so gleefully point out, looks now), but how unimaginative the author was.
Well, we have to remeber something: We're coming off a decade of unprecedented growth fueled by spotting The Next Big Thing. We expect disruptive technologies and keep an eye for them. In 1936, it was less clear that consumer electronics would ever be a giant market, and certainly unobvious that any family would own several types of media. Heck, most families owned only one radio, period. So his lack of imagination has a cultureal context that makes it make sense.
I hate to be contrary, but you're wrong. Imagine 10,000 slashdotters download the song and buy it legitimately. What if some noticeable fraction discover that -- saints preserve us! -- they like her music. So now they might go buy more. And we might have some numerical data to demonstrate that filesharing might, in principle, actually serve to increase sales. At least it's a chance to show how a post-dinosaur world might work.
On the other hand, the record companies are probably doing this so that they can point to how quickly the sales fall off as the MP3 is fileshared and people stop shelling out the $1. Then they can point to the experiment and say, "See? Everyone is a thief. Pass the CBDTPA!"
So don't do that! Don't rip or copy the song; don't hunt it down on Kazaa or what have you. Resist the urge to "stick it to them", at least on this one.
Re:How far do you want to extend this argument?
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 2
Blockquoth the poster:
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how getting a copy of a song (whether it is downloaded or a CD is purchased) suddenly means that the consumer gets to decide what should be done with what someone else created.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why, a priori and "in a state of nature", getting a copy doesn't. I actually agree that people who produce music should derive benefit from it. That is why, for example, I have never downloaded a song without approval of the holder of the copyright. (I do visit mp3.com from time to time.) However, technologically, the mechanism by which they did -- the relative scarcity of their work and the difficulty of reproducing it -- has become obsolete. It will not survive, except through legislation.
The music industry arose not through some God-given right to make money on music. It arose through an accidental and, as we've seen, precarious set of technological coincidences. THe technology has changed -- the industry will have to change, too.
And here's the rub: To get the state to act on your behalf, you have to make the case that it also serves the needs of the people. I happen to hold to the traditional view of copyright: It is a bargain between the creator and the public, that the public safeguards a creative work because the natural tendency will be for it to spread. But in return, the public demands compensation for the loss of the public intellectual commons. Thus everything slides eventually into public domain -- theoretically in a shortish span of time -- and certain safe harbors -- fair use provisions -- are created.
If anything, it is the content providers who have been cheating on this relationship. They have demanded draconian legislation that "protects" fair use rights by excluding the exercise of fair use rights; they have proposed legislation that gives them total access to and control of any electronic device anywhere that can conceivably deal in digital data; they have used lawsuits and threats of lawsuits to muzzle those who've point out flaws. The Content Cartel has not played fair with us, and now we're expected to play nice with them? On their terms?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, the same brand of nuclear hyperbole that brought us "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" (Jack Valenti, head drone of the MPAA). I've learned to be suspicious when someone's argument seems to depend on conflating the action in question with some horrible, nasty action, all out of proportion. I worry when people make their point by insisting on emotionally-charged words with only dubious links (if any) to the topic at hand.
But then again, what do you expect from an industry that believes "copying a piece of intellectual output with the approval of a copyright holder" is precisely the same as "rape and pillage on the high seas"?
Well, yes and no. Most people crying "civil disobedience" these days -- for intelluctual output or other reasons -- seem to think it's a way to legitamize their selfish acts. In true civil disobedience, you wouldn't hide what you did behind anonymizers, proxies, or spoofs. You would want the MPAA to come knocking on your door, so that the law could be challenged and -- more importantly -- exposed. In civil disobedience, you welcome the legal penalties as badges of legitimacy.
Wow. I'm used to people saying that free software is a bad business model and an unsound practice. I don't think I've ever encountered such a vehement, emotion-charged stand, though. In all seriousness, why do you "hate it, haite, hate it" so much?
I can see not wanting to be forced into that model. But if people want to follow it on their own, what's the problem?
Sure, when Microsoft finally gets around to releasing a patch. They've known about this explot for nearly three weeks. I disbelieve that mozilla, for example, would leave it in place this long.
Logic error: Unless you can provide documentation indicating a successful gopher exploit in, say, Opera, all that you can validly say is
It is logically quite possible that Opera, or Mozilla, or whatever is in fact secure, since we have no evidence to the contrary. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I actually don't think I'd use those features, so my original post stands. But it doesn't matter: Not a one of those is missing from the Yahoo! listings.
And of course those sites pay for the info at some point. (One could argue that users of public spectrum should have to provide this info as a cost of doing business, but
But why do the people providing the hardware also have to be the ones providing the programming info? Other than locking you into their business plan, of course. From the consumer's point of view, it doesn't make sense. With XML looming, one imagines a working group could define an open standard for TV info, and let competition come to the service market. And if several PVR makers agreed to utilize the open standard, they could leverage that freedom (I believe) into real cash.
Fair enough, except way back in 1994, I wrote a script that pretended to be a Netscape browser and read the day's schedule off TVguide.com... and I know next to nothing about the http protocols. If the info is out there and human-readable, then it can be automated.
But I suspect that there is a large market for people who just want an enhanced VCR and who haven't yet become addicted
Proving that any company, no matter how small, can indeed be crushed by the combined might of an entrenched industry, no matter how unjusitified. Yay for our justice system.
Umm, I use Yahoo!TV listings, and they're free. I don't use Replay or Tivo, so maybe I'm missing something. But I don't see why I'd need much more than program name and time.
There have been a lot of people making similar claims -- "They're just CYAing. They don't intend to actually ever enforce these provisions." Bull-crap. Lawyers don't put in clauses for the fun of it. You can be sure that SONICblue's legal team pored over this and every word fully represents the intent of the company. If they never, ever meant to do this, they wouldn't bother reserving the right...
But SONICblue doesn't recognize any sort of "fair use" safe harbor:
So you might be making Fair Use, but if the Copyright Cartel doesn't like it, phffft! $250 paperweight. Well, at least, when you demonstrate to SONICblue that your use was, indeed, a Fair Use case, they will apologize and reinstate the Service, right? Wrong:
So no, this is not justifiable CYA. They're saying, "We know that our service could get you into a slapping match with the Copyright Cartel. And we don't want to fight that. But we really do want your money for as long as we can get it."
Peh. I was looking at getting one of these, but now I'll just look into building my own.
Of course, it's true that
(InterOffice Memo, emphasis added)
In other words, it's not obvious that nice businesses fail because they're nice. They might fail just because new businesses fail. Likewise, rotten companies get more press and more attention, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean there are more of them or that their rottenness enhances their survivability.
Sure, like the final length of a virus reflects its complexity or difficulty at all. Ever enter, or even hear about, the obfuscated C contest? Getting a functional program in a small footprint is generally harder than producing a bloated monstrosity.
Just ask Microsoft.
True story: My dentist, when I was a kid, would give out lollipops. Pure sugar, artificially-colored, decay-inducing lollipops. Swear to God.
People miss the point on intellectual output. By its very nature, it is already and automatically copiable and public. The state, through copyright law or patent law, agrees to offer artificial protections, so as to induce creators to create. This is a fiction we all agree to for social purposes.
A government can "force" a file format -- or a Disney movie, for that matter -- into the "public dmain" by simply not enforcing the copyright. Copyright is not a passive thing intrinsic to a creative work. It is an active, volitional thing that requires the complicity of the courts (and by extension the rest of the government) to be effective.
Look at what goes on in all the "pirate" nations (such as, say, the US in 1890).
Actually, it could also just be an administrative rule or executive order. And the intent, of course, is to say not that a law be passed. The original poster was saying, the government need not mandate open, free, or shared formats. It votes with its purse
Bzzzt. That's why we're not a direct democracy in the US... because sometimes the majority is wrong, and so the minority opinion is protected. The Founders deliberately carved out a safe harbor of opinion and even action, to guard against the "tyranny of the majority". There are certain limits beyond which no one -- not even the majority -- can trespass.
It does not matter if every single adult, but one, believes that pornography is wrong. That one is still entitled to view it if he/she so chooses. That's what we mean by "adult". It's also what we mean by "citizen". These are two words whose meanings have been so taffy-tortured and denatured that they are essentially noise to most people's ears.
No, it seems like the kids are the most important thing -- or rather, are heart-breakingly named as the most important thing -- whenever some people want to stick their noses into my private life. "Oh, think of the kids" is the common cry of the would-be Moral Regulator, because hey, who can argue with protecting kids? Of course no one -- and those screaming just hope you never notice that their proposal is not about kids at all.
Consider a world where the government -- or vocal self-appointed moral guardians -- decide a priori and for everyone what is moral and good, or immoral and banned
Um, no. "infringement" = 3 syllables. "piracy" = 3 syllabels.
Draw for me the logical etymological chain from "rape and pillage on the open seas" to "copying of a work without permission of the creator". This isn't a natural evolution. The word was chosen specifically for its negative connotations.
Disclaimer: I've heard tell that "piracy" comes from "pirate radio", a term for certain stations that would broadcast unauthorized content from ships just outside the territorial limit. Since they're committing crime on the high seas (albeit copyright infringement, not rape and pillage), the metaphorical extensions seems OK... but it's been pushed way, way, way too far, and I would argue that this stretching of meanings is precisely to take advantage of the evil sounds of the word.
If everyone, in the course of their normal living, infringes on copyright -- if even the most rabid anti-"pirate" mouthpiece out there infringes without blinking and without shame -- then perhaps
This is not about defending porn. It's about defending a citizen's right to control his/her own access to information, some of which may be porn. It disturbs me to see how many people -- willfully or, worse, not -- miss the distinction and refuse to think at the right level of abstraction.
The question is, who determines what you see? You, or the government? And before you rant off about not wanting "your" tax dollars showing porn, let me state that I don't want any of my tax dollars supporting intrusive government-mandated censorship.
It's not his movie anymore. It's a part of the culture. How do I know? Because every time a new one is released, we have all those annoying "Making of..." clips wherein people breathlessly assert that it's a fundament of the culture.
You know what? Fame costs. Immanence costs. The price here is, Lucas no longer has sole claim to Star Wars. Legally of course he can do what he pleases... but he's still tinkering with a communal thing and had best be prepared for said community to revile him.
Leave them alone, George. Episode I proved that you have no clue what made Star Wars special. Stop destroying our past.
Well, we have to remeber something: We're coming off a decade of unprecedented growth fueled by spotting The Next Big Thing. We expect disruptive technologies and keep an eye for them. In 1936, it was less clear that consumer electronics would ever be a giant market, and certainly unobvious that any family would own several types of media. Heck, most families owned only one radio, period. So his lack of imagination has a cultureal context that makes it make sense.
Nah, I'm just good at it.
I hate to be contrary, but you're wrong. Imagine 10,000 slashdotters download the song and buy it legitimately. What if some noticeable fraction discover that -- saints preserve us! -- they like her music. So now they might go buy more. And we might have some numerical data to demonstrate that filesharing might, in principle, actually serve to increase sales. At least it's a chance to show how a post-dinosaur world might work.
On the other hand, the record companies are probably doing this so that they can point to how quickly the sales fall off as the MP3 is fileshared and people stop shelling out the $1. Then they can point to the experiment and say, "See? Everyone is a thief. Pass the CBDTPA!"
So don't do that! Don't rip or copy the song; don't hunt it down on Kazaa or what have you. Resist the urge to "stick it to them", at least on this one.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why, a priori and "in a state of nature", getting a copy doesn't. I actually agree that people who produce music should derive benefit from it. That is why, for example, I have never downloaded a song without approval of the holder of the copyright. (I do visit mp3.com from time to time.) However, technologically, the mechanism by which they did -- the relative scarcity of their work and the difficulty of reproducing it -- has become obsolete. It will not survive, except through legislation.
The music industry arose not through some God-given right to make money on music. It arose through an accidental and, as we've seen, precarious set of technological coincidences. THe technology has changed -- the industry will have to change, too.
And here's the rub: To get the state to act on your behalf, you have to make the case that it also serves the needs of the people. I happen to hold to the traditional view of copyright: It is a bargain between the creator and the public, that the public safeguards a creative work because the natural tendency will be for it to spread. But in return, the public demands compensation for the loss of the public intellectual commons. Thus everything slides eventually into public domain -- theoretically in a shortish span of time -- and certain safe harbors -- fair use provisions -- are created.
If anything, it is the content providers who have been cheating on this relationship. They have demanded draconian legislation that "protects" fair use rights by excluding the exercise of fair use rights; they have proposed legislation that gives them total access to and control of any electronic device anywhere that can conceivably deal in digital data; they have used lawsuits and threats of lawsuits to muzzle those who've point out flaws. The Content Cartel has not played fair with us, and now we're expected to play nice with them? On their terms?
Nobody weeps for the buggy-whip makers.