This is probably useless, but I'm just curious, would it be possible to apply the DMCA to this case? Considering how broad the idiotic terms in the law are, couldn't Hawaiian Airlines be considered "circumventing protection" by finding a way to access the private site, even if it was by social engineering means instead of technical. That would be a nice turn-around on an old enemy, but it might be a bad precedent to set, widening the reach of the law even more.
Not quite. IIRC, in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations were granted personship. This means that they have the exact same rights as a singular person (IMHO this is an extremely bad idea, but that's what the court ruled). So, regulations can be applied, but inherant rights cannot taken away. However, IANAL, so could someone confirm this?
The problem with your statements is that you are forgetting to remember what can really effect what OS people buy: a) Popularity and b) Ease of use. I use linux myself, but I highly doubt it will ever become the choice consumer OS in the state it is in now. First of all, MacOS is better known than linux (if only slightly), so there goes popularity. Second of all, normal people do NOT want command line, they want completely GUI. They want the OS to be as simple to use as Windows, or simpler, if possible. And they don't really care if it's open source or not, unless it would save them a significant amount of money (which is harder to make apparent than you think, people buy pre-built systems, they don't realize that the OS can be included in the price). Perhaps linux can be simplified to this level, but current GUIs are no where near where they need to be. For most people, what they need is NO COMMAND LINE whatsoever, no need to change with video settings, complete assurance that the OS will work perfectly with whatever hardware they have, nothing to fiddle with, and nothing to manage. The Mac OS X might offer this, which is why I don't think this man's argument can be discounted completely. Linux may triumph, but only if someone can come up with a way to make it AS simple or simpler than Windows, without the errors.
Agreed, but when the line is drawn, it must be defined very explicitely. Vague definitions cause most of the problems that plague our law system today. Though an exact definition might be a problem for special circumstances, leaving it up to interpretation generally ends up weighting rulings unfairly towards one side or the other.
This is a valid point, but unfortunately, it leads to some unsavory conclusions. If this site can be sacraficed in the name of keeping the ISP in buisness (which can be a legitamit concern, albeit rather harsh on the innocent user), then alot of things can be justified. There's no way to cut off the flow of the argument. Stopping people from using trademarks in any fashion can be a legitamit concern, because it hurts profits to get bad reviews. Stopping protests against actions by companies can be a legitamit concern, because that hurts profits too. Letting major corporations merge into monopolies whenever they feel like it can be a legitamit concern, because not letting them would definately hurt profits. I'm not saying the ISP's argument is completely invalid, but which should we prefer? Complete restrictions on companies, or giving them free reign to do anything in the name of profits? It's not actually an easy question to answer.
and no descriptions, here's a little backgound information on the most mentioned shows: Neon Genesis Evangelion: Giant robots, religion, and teen angst brought together to tell an incredably complex story. Also check out the movies, though see the entire series (INCLUDING the ending, even though some people don't like it) first. Akira: Psycopathic cyberpunk action anime. The manga (comic) is also highly recommended, as it details on the very complex plot which is has to be condensed into the movie. The end scene is pretty disturbing, not recommended for kiddies. Ghost in the Shell: Good action, a couple deep insights, but it really, really summerizes on the manga, which is much better. Again, not for the kiddies, the main hero spends most of the movie fighting completely nude (I didn't like this addition, it wasn't in the manga). Macross: One of the original big robot series (along with Gundam). Highly recommended in its original form. Macross Plus is also excellent, but in movie and OVA form. Gundam: The other original big robot series. Excellent plot, and it has been continuing on in different forms for over a decade. Gundam Wing (which is on Cartoon Network during toonami) is very highly rocommended. The Wings of Honneamise: This hasn't been mentioned much, but I really liked this movie. It excellently details the space program on a world in an alternate universe, which is much different, yet very recognizable. Vampire Hunter D: A classic of horror anime, pure and simple. It's a bit older, but if you can put up with the not-so-high-tech animation, this is a must see. Patlabor: Both of the movies are excellent, the first for its cinematogrophy and suspense, and the second for its excellent political intrigue. This is another big robots series, but it's a little more down-to-earth about them. Grave of the Fireflies: A very powerful story of war. Pretty much no action, but lots of emotions. Rojin Z (sp?): No one has mentioned this, but it's done by the same man as Akira. It has more of a silly tone to it, but at the same time is equally disturbing. Ranma 1/2: Transforming people, wacky martial arts, etc. Hilarious That's enough for now, these would probably be my highest recommendations.
does it matter? Because the FTC is recommending a vote in congress does not mean that it will be passed. Actually, I find it very unlikely that it will be passed. This won't be as easy to justify to congress as COPA, and the corporations will have plenty of nice-sounding arguments against regulation up their sleeves. I mean, look at the speech that Bronfman gave lambasting online anonimity. It sounds reasonable enough to probably convince most congressmen to reject any sort of measure. Granted, this is about commercial privacy, not privacy in programs such as Napster, but the argument could probably still be applied.
That would entail either an obsene and unfeasable amount of work to confirm which users were trading in legitamit material or innacurate and wide-sweeping bans which would effectively eliminate all of their users. Neither of these is a possible solution. They have already presented a solution that is possible, and workable. Napster is intended for MP3 distribution. Because MP3s are commonly used as a format for piracy does not mean that Napster is intended as a utility to facilitate piracy, just as VCRs are commonly used for (effectively) piracy when people use them to record TV shows, but they are not intended for this use alone. They also have legitimate uses, just as Napster does. And just as it would be outrageous to sue VCR making companies and make VCRs illegal, it is equally outrageous to sue Napster and make that type of software illegal.
If Napster was built exclusively to facilitate piracy, then why did they ban all of the users that Metallica asked them to. Perhaps it was, but it can be used well for legitimate purposes too. And how exactly could you know the creator's original intent? I can't either, which is why their record needs to be taken into account. And their record shows that they fully complied with Metallica.
The real problem with this suit, however, is not that Lars is trying to control distribution of his music. That is perfectly justified. What isn't is blaming Napster. They have said repeatedly that they are not responsible for the content that transfers over their servers unless a problem is pointed out to them. They stuck by this agreement when they banned the (supposed) offending users at Metallica's request. It is not technically feasible for them to ask every single artist who could possibly be on their servers permission before-hand. That does not, however, mean the service should be made illegal, because it can be used for legal purposes (independent artists, live bootlegs, etc. Yes, people DO transfer these things over Napster). If artists would like their music taken off the service, they can go to Napster with a list of names (This is an iffy use of identification, but still can be used) and Napster takes those people off the service. If those people apply to join back on, and can show that they were wrongly charged, they're back on. There may still be some pirating on Napster, but it will be much reduced, and it's better than applying draconian restrictions to file-transfering software. There are times when individual rights come before profit.
I download mp3s off napster constantly. Not only do I admit this illegal, I also admit this in direct copywrite violation and I also admit that it's stealing. However, artists such as Dr. Dre make money off their concerts, not their CDs, so I simply can't think of it as stealing from artist themselves. I'm stealing from the record companies, and frankly, I have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever with stealing from the mafia (they are equivelent, in my eyes, legit buisness practices or not). Maybe I have a screwed up morality, but in any case, I will continue to download mp3s and enjoy them until I get sued or arrested.
The problem with the so-called "spooky" particles is that their basic property is they cannot transfer information in of themselves. If they did then the observer would have to affect random outcome and that's not possible. They can only notify the other particle of their polarity (? I think that's the right term), no other information can be obtained or the experiment is ruined.
Not quite. If I understand the physics correctly, this would simply be another form of input, like I am typing on this keyboard. No information could be sent back, since a computer is not an observer. The problem is that for the input device to work correctly, we would need to control how we collapse the wave functions, weighing the probabilities in our favor. If we could do this efficiently, the world would be alot different. For an interesting look at the possibilites of what could happen if we could control the probabilities of the collaps, check out the book Quarentine by Greg Egan.
Quite correct, but the AUP's reserve the right to pull sites that CONTAIN libelous, slanderous or other material that contravenes the law. In this case, the site didn't have any of that material, it was just warned not to have that material. There's a difference.
There's no need to sue everyone on the planet. They simply have to control AOL and Microsoft and they've got control of about 90% of it. Or, more easily, the can just wait for the transfer upgrade to broad band and control that. The internet is centralized, they can control it if they wish. But, there's no need. Has anyone seen anything in the "non-geek" news that reported the cphack situation as anything besides two guys corrupting innocent children? How about DeCSS, heard anything about that didn't have the word "pirate" plastered all over it? Do normal people even know what the hell DMCA is? The content is already controlled, not by the government, but by the coporations. It's already happening. If CNN and Fox News report it some way, the majority will believe exactly what they say, and the majority rules in a democracy. They could make up a story and people would most likely believe it. They already blatently twist the facts, why not get rid of the facts all together? The point is, the government is not what we have to fear. They don't understand this very well themselves. We have to worry about the giant coporations who can lobby and use their force of the many against the few to influence our government in the direction that the coporations want. Who's a judge going to believe, a large coporation that has spent very much time and money making products realted to the computer industry and paying for the best lawyers it can find, or a group of geeks who talk about things he/she can't understand half the time, and spout something about philosophical implications the rest of time? Take your guess...
In any case, despite being outside the country, Matel did have a good case if the judge knew little about computers (which he/she probably would). They already pumped the media with reports that these guys had created a program to circumvent cp, allowing "innocent children to get past the filters their parents specifically bought and access dangerous sites". It's been reported exactly that way in almost every news story except places with some remote computer intelligence. And they also made the mistake of copywriting their own process. That gives Matel a handle to pull on "How can they be fighting incorrect copywrites!? They have a copywrite on their own process! They're just trying to circumvent the filter". Added with the fact that they're way hell away from the US, this was probably a good move on their part, even with ACLU backing. It would be a hard case to win, and I'm sure that Matel would pump the media to make them look like asses even more if they tried to fight it. Unfortunatly, the battle has to be lost, this time.
Ah, we come back to socilism again. I really don't see why people continually think that's a bad word, let's list things you would not have without socilism: Unions Fair Wages "Real" Rights (Oh, sure, you have rights, that you are going to give up because I'm the boss and I hold your paycheck) Social Security (Isn't working out too well, but it's better than what was happening beforehand) Programs helping the poor (Don't start complaining about handouts, ever read "The Christmas Carol"? How 'bout "Oliver Twist"? You want to go back to that?) Socilism is a GOOD thing, unfortunatly it was linked with the USSR during the McArthy witch hunt for 'communists' and forever since has been associated with the 'big, bad, red menace'. Get off it, the USSR is gone (though Russia's not much better for it, in my opinion), and China won't be able to continue their policy much longer (look what happened with encryption liscensing, no one turned up!). There really is no more red menace, so stop throwing words around like there is.
A point that should be made here is, why does everyone assume that we'll ever be able to make a real "intelligent" computer? We don't even have the faintest idea how the brain exactly works in humans, much less recreating it in the context of a computer. And even if we could, what happens when we do that and find that one factor of intelligence is still missing? Or perhaps we have the intelligence, but not the emotions. I'm not exactly a very devout person or anything, but I think there's something more to us then just neurons in a series of connections. The human mind is an incredable thing, and I don't see it being replicated very easily at all.
Well, I guess I was incorrect in saying that phrase. It would've been better said as "Many parents do not want their children having access to hard core porn". I myself consider people having sex together fine, and I have no problem with nudity. But, there are things on the internet that go beyond just people having sex. I believe there are some images out there that really shouldn't be viewed by anyone. How about "pretend" rape pictures? How about child porn? This sort of content I believe, shouldn't be availiable to children, or anyone. I guess many of you don't share my views, I'm sorry for the assumption I made.
I think most people agree that, in certain ways, "censorware" can be useful. No one really wants kids to easily see hard core porn, do they? But, the way that the companies who produce this type of product are lazily progamming, it's blocking the wrong type of sites. There's a solution, if we all don't like what this is doing to youths trying to access the internet, then let's make an alternative. Perhaps someone could start a project to produce a GOOD "censorware" product, one that's engineered to block the right kind of sites. I'm sure it's possible, and if the program was made availiable freely that would be a great added bonus. "Why buy these expensive, commercial nanny products that block the wrong kinds of sites, when you can get our program which does it correctly for free?". Perhaps I'm just wishfully thinking here, but until an alternative is presented, people are going to side with the "censorware" companies.
If interpreted broadly enough, won't Apple be able to apply the copywrite to any computer that's built into the moniter on the grounds that it "looks alike"? It's alright to me, though. I've had just about enough with the i-fruit, much less copies of i-fruit.
This is different because, now, you're not owning a physical object, you're owning something that isn't really there. A house exists, it took effort to build and has to be tended to. A program is a series of electronic signals, it's not really "there". It can also be created without physical effort after the first version of it is produced. So, you just cannot apply those examples to this situation, it's different. And I really don't see how it has anything to do with communism. Our Congress rules almost always in favor of brute capitolism. Very brute capitolism, which isn't much better at its lowest then communism. Probably worse.
Do you see that little line at the beginning? It said "not everyone, I stress that, not everyone". Perhaps I should've restated it before the age section, I apoligize for insulting your sense of... non-shallowness, I guess. The section was stated incorrectly, but I did not mean everyone when I wrote it. I, personally, wouldn't act that way to someone if they had something important to say, but most people I've observed do. Perhaps the area you live in is different, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably useless, but I'm just curious, would it be possible to apply the DMCA to this case? Considering how broad the idiotic terms in the law are, couldn't Hawaiian Airlines be considered "circumventing protection" by finding a way to access the private site, even if it was by social engineering means instead of technical. That would be a nice turn-around on an old enemy, but it might be a bad precedent to set, widening the reach of the law even more.
Not quite. IIRC, in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations were granted personship. This means that they have the exact same rights as a singular person (IMHO this is an extremely bad idea, but that's what the court ruled). So, regulations can be applied, but inherant rights cannot taken away. However, IANAL, so could someone confirm this?
The problem with your statements is that you are forgetting to remember what can really effect what OS people buy: a) Popularity and b) Ease of use. I use linux myself, but I highly doubt it will ever become the choice consumer OS in the state it is in now. First of all, MacOS is better known than linux (if only slightly), so there goes popularity. Second of all, normal people do NOT want command line, they want completely GUI. They want the OS to be as simple to use as Windows, or simpler, if possible. And they don't really care if it's open source or not, unless it would save them a significant amount of money (which is harder to make apparent than you think, people buy pre-built systems, they don't realize that the OS can be included in the price). Perhaps linux can be simplified to this level, but current GUIs are no where near where they need to be. For most people, what they need is NO COMMAND LINE whatsoever, no need to change with video settings, complete assurance that the OS will work perfectly with whatever hardware they have, nothing to fiddle with, and nothing to manage. The Mac OS X might offer this, which is why I don't think this man's argument can be discounted completely. Linux may triumph, but only if someone can come up with a way to make it AS simple or simpler than Windows, without the errors.
Agreed, but when the line is drawn, it must be defined very explicitely. Vague definitions cause most of the problems that plague our law system today. Though an exact definition might be a problem for special circumstances, leaving it up to interpretation generally ends up weighting rulings unfairly towards one side or the other.
This is a valid point, but unfortunately, it leads to some unsavory conclusions. If this site can be sacraficed in the name of keeping the ISP in buisness (which can be a legitamit concern, albeit rather harsh on the innocent user), then alot of things can be justified. There's no way to cut off the flow of the argument. Stopping people from using trademarks in any fashion can be a legitamit concern, because it hurts profits to get bad reviews. Stopping protests against actions by companies can be a legitamit concern, because that hurts profits too. Letting major corporations merge into monopolies whenever they feel like it can be a legitamit concern, because not letting them would definately hurt profits. I'm not saying the ISP's argument is completely invalid, but which should we prefer? Complete restrictions on companies, or giving them free reign to do anything in the name of profits? It's not actually an easy question to answer.
and no descriptions, here's a little backgound information on the most mentioned shows: Neon Genesis Evangelion: Giant robots, religion, and teen angst brought together to tell an incredably complex story. Also check out the movies, though see the entire series (INCLUDING the ending, even though some people don't like it) first. Akira: Psycopathic cyberpunk action anime. The manga (comic) is also highly recommended, as it details on the very complex plot which is has to be condensed into the movie. The end scene is pretty disturbing, not recommended for kiddies. Ghost in the Shell: Good action, a couple deep insights, but it really, really summerizes on the manga, which is much better. Again, not for the kiddies, the main hero spends most of the movie fighting completely nude (I didn't like this addition, it wasn't in the manga). Macross: One of the original big robot series (along with Gundam). Highly recommended in its original form. Macross Plus is also excellent, but in movie and OVA form. Gundam: The other original big robot series. Excellent plot, and it has been continuing on in different forms for over a decade. Gundam Wing (which is on Cartoon Network during toonami) is very highly rocommended. The Wings of Honneamise: This hasn't been mentioned much, but I really liked this movie. It excellently details the space program on a world in an alternate universe, which is much different, yet very recognizable. Vampire Hunter D: A classic of horror anime, pure and simple. It's a bit older, but if you can put up with the not-so-high-tech animation, this is a must see. Patlabor: Both of the movies are excellent, the first for its cinematogrophy and suspense, and the second for its excellent political intrigue. This is another big robots series, but it's a little more down-to-earth about them. Grave of the Fireflies: A very powerful story of war. Pretty much no action, but lots of emotions. Rojin Z (sp?): No one has mentioned this, but it's done by the same man as Akira. It has more of a silly tone to it, but at the same time is equally disturbing. Ranma 1/2: Transforming people, wacky martial arts, etc. Hilarious That's enough for now, these would probably be my highest recommendations.
does it matter? Because the FTC is recommending a vote in congress does not mean that it will be passed. Actually, I find it very unlikely that it will be passed. This won't be as easy to justify to congress as COPA, and the corporations will have plenty of nice-sounding arguments against regulation up their sleeves. I mean, look at the speech that Bronfman gave lambasting online anonimity. It sounds reasonable enough to probably convince most congressmen to reject any sort of measure. Granted, this is about commercial privacy, not privacy in programs such as Napster, but the argument could probably still be applied.
Since the argument turned this way, open Napster, look, I'm downloading a bootleg of a live DMB concert. Which is quite legitimat and legal.
That would entail either an obsene and unfeasable amount of work to confirm which users were trading in legitamit material or innacurate and wide-sweeping bans which would effectively eliminate all of their users. Neither of these is a possible solution. They have already presented a solution that is possible, and workable. Napster is intended for MP3 distribution. Because MP3s are commonly used as a format for piracy does not mean that Napster is intended as a utility to facilitate piracy, just as VCRs are commonly used for (effectively) piracy when people use them to record TV shows, but they are not intended for this use alone. They also have legitimate uses, just as Napster does. And just as it would be outrageous to sue VCR making companies and make VCRs illegal, it is equally outrageous to sue Napster and make that type of software illegal.
If Napster was built exclusively to facilitate piracy, then why did they ban all of the users that Metallica asked them to. Perhaps it was, but it can be used well for legitimate purposes too. And how exactly could you know the creator's original intent? I can't either, which is why their record needs to be taken into account. And their record shows that they fully complied with Metallica.
The real problem with this suit, however, is not that Lars is trying to control distribution of his music. That is perfectly justified. What isn't is blaming Napster. They have said repeatedly that they are not responsible for the content that transfers over their servers unless a problem is pointed out to them. They stuck by this agreement when they banned the (supposed) offending users at Metallica's request. It is not technically feasible for them to ask every single artist who could possibly be on their servers permission before-hand. That does not, however, mean the service should be made illegal, because it can be used for legal purposes (independent artists, live bootlegs, etc. Yes, people DO transfer these things over Napster). If artists would like their music taken off the service, they can go to Napster with a list of names (This is an iffy use of identification, but still can be used) and Napster takes those people off the service. If those people apply to join back on, and can show that they were wrongly charged, they're back on. There may still be some pirating on Napster, but it will be much reduced, and it's better than applying draconian restrictions to file-transfering software. There are times when individual rights come before profit.
I download mp3s off napster constantly. Not only do I admit this illegal, I also admit this in direct copywrite violation and I also admit that it's stealing. However, artists such as Dr. Dre make money off their concerts, not their CDs, so I simply can't think of it as stealing from artist themselves. I'm stealing from the record companies, and frankly, I have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever with stealing from the mafia (they are equivelent, in my eyes, legit buisness practices or not). Maybe I have a screwed up morality, but in any case, I will continue to download mp3s and enjoy them until I get sued or arrested.
The problem with the so-called "spooky" particles is that their basic property is they cannot transfer information in of themselves. If they did then the observer would have to affect random outcome and that's not possible. They can only notify the other particle of their polarity (? I think that's the right term), no other information can be obtained or the experiment is ruined.
Not quite. If I understand the physics correctly, this would simply be another form of input, like I am typing on this keyboard. No information could be sent back, since a computer is not an observer. The problem is that for the input device to work correctly, we would need to control how we collapse the wave functions, weighing the probabilities in our favor. If we could do this efficiently, the world would be alot different. For an interesting look at the possibilites of what could happen if we could control the probabilities of the collaps, check out the book Quarentine by Greg Egan.
I'd never have thought of the connection, but it's good there are resources for this type of thing out there.
Quite correct, but the AUP's reserve the right to pull sites that CONTAIN libelous, slanderous or other material that contravenes the law. In this case, the site didn't have any of that material, it was just warned not to have that material. There's a difference.
There's no need to sue everyone on the planet. They simply have to control AOL and Microsoft and they've got control of about 90% of it. Or, more easily, the can just wait for the transfer upgrade to broad band and control that. The internet is centralized, they can control it if they wish. But, there's no need. Has anyone seen anything in the "non-geek" news that reported the cphack situation as anything besides two guys corrupting innocent children? How about DeCSS, heard anything about that didn't have the word "pirate" plastered all over it? Do normal people even know what the hell DMCA is? The content is already controlled, not by the government, but by the coporations. It's already happening. If CNN and Fox News report it some way, the majority will believe exactly what they say, and the majority rules in a democracy. They could make up a story and people would most likely believe it. They already blatently twist the facts, why not get rid of the facts all together? The point is, the government is not what we have to fear. They don't understand this very well themselves. We have to worry about the giant coporations who can lobby and use their force of the many against the few to influence our government in the direction that the coporations want. Who's a judge going to believe, a large coporation that has spent very much time and money making products realted to the computer industry and paying for the best lawyers it can find, or a group of geeks who talk about things he/she can't understand half the time, and spout something about philosophical implications the rest of time? Take your guess...
In any case, despite being outside the country, Matel did have a good case if the judge knew little about computers (which he/she probably would). They already pumped the media with reports that these guys had created a program to circumvent cp, allowing "innocent children to get past the filters their parents specifically bought and access dangerous sites". It's been reported exactly that way in almost every news story except places with some remote computer intelligence. And they also made the mistake of copywriting their own process. That gives Matel a handle to pull on "How can they be fighting incorrect copywrites!? They have a copywrite on their own process! They're just trying to circumvent the filter". Added with the fact that they're way hell away from the US, this was probably a good move on their part, even with ACLU backing. It would be a hard case to win, and I'm sure that Matel would pump the media to make them look like asses even more if they tried to fight it. Unfortunatly, the battle has to be lost, this time.
Ah, we come back to socilism again. I really don't see why people continually think that's a bad word, let's list things you would not have without socilism: Unions Fair Wages "Real" Rights (Oh, sure, you have rights, that you are going to give up because I'm the boss and I hold your paycheck) Social Security (Isn't working out too well, but it's better than what was happening beforehand) Programs helping the poor (Don't start complaining about handouts, ever read "The Christmas Carol"? How 'bout "Oliver Twist"? You want to go back to that?) Socilism is a GOOD thing, unfortunatly it was linked with the USSR during the McArthy witch hunt for 'communists' and forever since has been associated with the 'big, bad, red menace'. Get off it, the USSR is gone (though Russia's not much better for it, in my opinion), and China won't be able to continue their policy much longer (look what happened with encryption liscensing, no one turned up!). There really is no more red menace, so stop throwing words around like there is.
A point that should be made here is, why does everyone assume that we'll ever be able to make a real "intelligent" computer? We don't even have the faintest idea how the brain exactly works in humans, much less recreating it in the context of a computer. And even if we could, what happens when we do that and find that one factor of intelligence is still missing? Or perhaps we have the intelligence, but not the emotions. I'm not exactly a very devout person or anything, but I think there's something more to us then just neurons in a series of connections. The human mind is an incredable thing, and I don't see it being replicated very easily at all.
Well, I guess I was incorrect in saying that phrase. It would've been better said as "Many parents do not want their children having access to hard core porn". I myself consider people having sex together fine, and I have no problem with nudity. But, there are things on the internet that go beyond just people having sex. I believe there are some images out there that really shouldn't be viewed by anyone. How about "pretend" rape pictures? How about child porn? This sort of content I believe, shouldn't be availiable to children, or anyone. I guess many of you don't share my views, I'm sorry for the assumption I made.
I think most people agree that, in certain ways, "censorware" can be useful. No one really wants kids to easily see hard core porn, do they? But, the way that the companies who produce this type of product are lazily progamming, it's blocking the wrong type of sites. There's a solution, if we all don't like what this is doing to youths trying to access the internet, then let's make an alternative. Perhaps someone could start a project to produce a GOOD "censorware" product, one that's engineered to block the right kind of sites. I'm sure it's possible, and if the program was made availiable freely that would be a great added bonus. "Why buy these expensive, commercial nanny products that block the wrong kinds of sites, when you can get our program which does it correctly for free?". Perhaps I'm just wishfully thinking here, but until an alternative is presented, people are going to side with the "censorware" companies.
If interpreted broadly enough, won't Apple be able to apply the copywrite to any computer that's built into the moniter on the grounds that it "looks alike"? It's alright to me, though. I've had just about enough with the i-fruit, much less copies of i-fruit.
This is different because, now, you're not owning a physical object, you're owning something that isn't really there. A house exists, it took effort to build and has to be tended to. A program is a series of electronic signals, it's not really "there". It can also be created without physical effort after the first version of it is produced. So, you just cannot apply those examples to this situation, it's different. And I really don't see how it has anything to do with communism. Our Congress rules almost always in favor of brute capitolism. Very brute capitolism, which isn't much better at its lowest then communism. Probably worse.
Do you see that little line at the beginning? It said "not everyone, I stress that, not everyone". Perhaps I should've restated it before the age section, I apoligize for insulting your sense of... non-shallowness, I guess. The section was stated incorrectly, but I did not mean everyone when I wrote it. I, personally, wouldn't act that way to someone if they had something important to say, but most people I've observed do. Perhaps the area you live in is different, I don't know.