It asked me for my email address (the same I used when I ordered the book not fine minutes ago).
On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if the e-mail address I have in my profile still works though I have nooo idea what I could send in return to the kind spirit who would help me test it...
There are immense socio-political implications to this statement.
I should hope so. But it's simply re-stating the obvious - that copying can never be theft in any way, shape or form. You can not steal what you leave behind and no man can exclusively own immaterial values, ideas, knowledge or culture. Copyrights are voodoo economics, plain and simple. There are numerous values in life that are not bound by a magical "right to profit" by someone.
whoever managed to fight their way to the patent office first would be trying very hard to instill the idea that it was their moral right to do so.
Yep. Not to mention that it was "their moral right" simply because they got there first, thereby reducing the whole lofty notion of "inventor's rights" to a simple driving contest. Stuff that in yer morality pipe and smoke it, Ayn Rand!
there is no difference taking content this way and going to a store and stealing a CD or DVD.
*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.
You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.
No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.
Copying digital content will always be free, and thus impossible to compete with in terms of price alone. This is why copyright exists in the first place.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. Copyright exists to promote the creation of new art. Anything else is an unwanted side effect. As for competing with free, look up the business case for selling bottled water. On a free market, people will pay whatever a good is worth to them. This "free market" I speak of can not be regulated by state-imposed monopolies like copyrights, or for that matter, patents because it then ceases to be free.
Immaterial values can not be treated like physical goods and it's about time we stopped trying.
If any other content owner manages to get indexed by Google they break out the champagne, but some author's association sue for the same kind of free marketing? Executive summary: Idiots.
This is the way it's supposed to be:
1. Create content
2. Get indexed by Google
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
But these numbskulls put "sue" in step number three and basically will never get to step four. Sounds like it's time for a class-action suit from their members against this so called "guild".
If we were going to see some bad side effects they would have appeared by now.
What makes you think we haven't? This guy apparently sat way too close to the TV as a kid and managed to become President against all odds but now we're reading about the long-term effects on Slashdot.
What's all this, then? A fundamentally sound, logical, coherent, analytical and factually correct post with impeccable spelling and perfect grammar? I say, this is Slashdot. You have obviously taken a wrong turn in a router somewhere.
That said, this missive shold be used as standard response every single time some copyright apologist raises his ugly head. It is a wonderful silver bullet and it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I will print it out on the finest paper available, frame it and hang it in my office as a testament to the artistic heights of which us mere humans can only dream.
I like to think about extending copyright to 500 years.
Retroactively.
After all of Disney's execs had a massive group-orgasm, one of the brighter ones would crawl out from under the sea of cum and realize the implications, ruining the party. They'd have to find each and every living heir to the guy who wrote Cinderella and negotiate the movie rights for the derivative work. For millions and millions. Per heir.
Add Snow White, The Hunchback and even Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill to the mix and you'd be looking at an instant bankruptcy.
Just being popular isn't a problem. Sending it lots of submissions for the purpose of driving Pagerank to a linkfarm is. Simply nofollow ALL submitter links and/or just link it to the submitter's userid page here. That link adds nothing to the story itself and the user can put a homepage in her or his user prefs.
Big chief speak much sense, but I don't think leaving out a nofollow is essential to Slashdot, nor is the concept of letting all submitters put a random link in there. So simply link the submitter's name/handle to his/her userid page. If 2xBeatles submits good stories, by all means let him, but he won't be driving Pagerank anymore and the discussion around him as linkwhore will die out. Well, not maybe him, but the ones who will come after. The submission-monkeys will tire since there's no more reward and when we, the people, notice that it's no longer near-impossible to get a story in edgewise, you'll get more and more varied submissions. Win-win. Hell, I'd submit more.
And, to get it out of the way:
Set up linkfarm
Submit story to Slashdot and link to the farm
???
Profit!!!
But you just ruined the joke by telling us what step 3 was.
Anyway, those readers who dislike Beatles-Beatles don't really dislike the user account submitting the stories, you dislike the URL he/she links to.
So simply stop linking to that URL. It's basically random anyway. Link to the submitter's userid instead. Or at the very least, add the nofollow. That would be easy enough to do. I read Slashdot for the news and (occasional) intelligent discussion, not to read about some Pagerank-happy monkey's linkfarm.
When the rest of us notices that it's no longer near-impossible to get a submission accepted, you'll get more varied stories in your inbox. You don't need Beatles-Beatles or Roland Pickanose for that.
Beatles Beatles, or whoever it'll be next, aren't "known troublemakers."
Yes, he is. Taco even said as much. And the readers know it, or there wouldn't be a lot of complaints when his name comes around. It's a judgement call, really. But if the editors have a watch list they can check the link - if it's a useless linkfarm, they simply pick someone else's submission. They should actually be doing checks like that for EVERY submission but I'll settle for a few now and then.
And, adding a nofollow to the link with stop driving pagerank for the submission spammer's sites and hopefully they'll stop it and let regular submitters have a chance at contributing. The submission spammer's write-ups are often second-rate since they probably don't have time to think things through for every damned submission they send in.
What should I do with a good submission from a reader with a reputation?
Toss it. The reason those submitters earn their reputation is because you haven't killed his or her stories before.
You need some kind of editorial policy where all your editors share the same basic guidelines for what to approve
and what not to, and this should include a corpus of "known troublemakers". It's basic due diligence and should be
as natural as looking a wee bit harder for dupes and checking the spelling and grammar one last time before hitting "Publish".
And yes, add the "nofollow". It doesn't detract from the story one bit, but it does kill some of the story spammer's motivation.
I'd rather live without a good story completely than having it ruined by a discussion about the submitter.
There are plenty more stories in the sea, but there's just one Slashdot.
They added it fairly recently so I forgive you. It's in the Update Manager settings - "Display information about update process" and remember to select "Complete at next computer restart" too.
I think "Zonk" is just a code for when the other editors are extra drunk. I say "extra" drunk because their normal status seem to be somewhere between slightly tipsy and totally incapacitated.
- Gee, Taco, I'm pisching drunk here. Schee thisch sctory here? I'm gonna appraprove it. *hic* Right nowish.
- Slow down, Cowboy, you're too drunk. Go login as Zonk first and no one'll notice.
- Good idea, bosch. I'm on it like... *hic* Whatever. Now, where did that wittle Schubmit button go? Here, button!
It's about time someone takes a stand to abolish copyright as we've come to know it. It was all fine and good as long as the artists and writers benefited from their work, but the whole shebang has become too commercialized and streamlined it's not even funny anymore. It's all about focus groups, target audiences and enhancing the almighty bottom line by desperately trying to save dying business methods. Regular Joes are sick and fucking tired of being branded as criminals. Save that shit for the real gangstas, like the jaywalkers or people loitering with intent.
*IAA, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. As long as you try to usurp copyright for your personal profits, we'll try to abolish it. And you can take that to the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same, actually. Talk like a Pirate Day is observed internationally and this year in Sweden it's on September 17 (election day). Arrr!
But strangely, it doesn't really feel like it was worth the wait...
It asked me for my email address (the same I used when I ordered the book not fine minutes ago).
On a totally unrelated note, I wonder if the e-mail address I have in my profile still works though I have nooo idea what I could send in return to the kind spirit who would help me test it...
I should hope so. But it's simply re-stating the obvious - that copying can never be theft in any way, shape or form. You can not steal what you leave behind and no man can exclusively own immaterial values, ideas, knowledge or culture. Copyrights are voodoo economics, plain and simple. There are numerous values in life that are not bound by a magical "right to profit" by someone.
whoever managed to fight their way to the patent office first would be trying very hard to instill the idea that it was their moral right to do so.
Yep. Not to mention that it was "their moral right" simply because they got there first, thereby reducing the whole lofty notion of "inventor's rights" to a simple driving contest. Stuff that in yer morality pipe and smoke it, Ayn Rand!
*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.
You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.
No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.
References:
Mindjack - Piracy is good?
International Herald Tribune - Imagine a world without copyright
A History And Possible Future Of Cinema
First Monday - Piercing the myths of p2p
TV Week - NBC: iPod Boosts Prime Time
Stealing Music
Roderick T. Long - The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
So in other words, this is MS SARS. Am I wrong in thinking that they claim that Windows Defender can cure it, or at least inoculate against it?
Now go do it again, and remember to read the notes. :-)
FWIW, I read it religiously but it's waaay funnier than any organized religion has been for the last two thousand years. :-)
Yep, the power is in DC. Washington, DC, lobbying capital of the world. Next question, please.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. Copyright exists to promote the creation of new art. Anything else is an unwanted side effect. As for competing with free, look up the business case for selling bottled water. On a free market, people will pay whatever a good is worth to them. This "free market" I speak of can not be regulated by state-imposed monopolies like copyrights, or for that matter, patents because it then ceases to be free.
Immaterial values can not be treated like physical goods and it's about time we stopped trying.
Best summary. Evar.
This is the way it's supposed to be:
1. Create content
2. Get indexed by Google
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
But these numbskulls put "sue" in step number three and basically will never get to step four. Sounds like it's time for a class-action suit from their members against this so called "guild".
What makes you think we haven't? This guy apparently sat way too close to the TV as a kid and managed to become President against all odds but now we're reading about the long-term effects on Slashdot.
No. They will all be the Windows Vista Buttfucking Edition.
That said, this missive shold be used as standard response every single time some copyright apologist raises his ugly head. It is a wonderful silver bullet and it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I will print it out on the finest paper available, frame it and hang it in my office as a testament to the artistic heights of which us mere humans can only dream.
Thank you.
Know what else was missing? Humans. We don't like those kind of temperatures very much so even if Earth will survive global warming, we might not.
Retroactively.
After all of Disney's execs had a massive group-orgasm, one of the brighter ones would crawl out from under the sea of cum and realize the implications, ruining the party. They'd have to find each and every living heir to the guy who wrote Cinderella and negotiate the movie rights for the derivative work. For millions and millions. Per heir.
Add Snow White, The Hunchback and even Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill to the mix and you'd be looking at an instant bankruptcy.
After that's done, we could revoke copyrights altogether.
But, first you need to read this book: Lawrence Lessig - Free Culture. You'll love it.
Just being popular isn't a problem. Sending it lots of submissions for the purpose of driving Pagerank to a linkfarm is. Simply nofollow ALL submitter links and/or just link it to the submitter's userid page here. That link adds nothing to the story itself and the user can put a homepage in her or his user prefs.
And, to get it out of the way:
- Set up linkfarm
- Submit story to Slashdot and link to the farm
- ???
- Profit!!!
But you just ruined the joke by telling us what step 3 was.(See? THAT is at the core of Slashdot. ;-)
So simply stop linking to that URL. It's basically random anyway. Link to the submitter's userid instead. Or at the very least, add the nofollow. That would be easy enough to do. I read Slashdot for the news and (occasional) intelligent discussion, not to read about some Pagerank-happy monkey's linkfarm.
When the rest of us notices that it's no longer near-impossible to get a submission accepted, you'll get more varied stories in your inbox. You don't need Beatles-Beatles or Roland Pickanose for that.
Yes, he is. Taco even said as much. And the readers know it, or there wouldn't be a lot of complaints when his name comes around. It's a judgement call, really. But if the editors have a watch list they can check the link - if it's a useless linkfarm, they simply pick someone else's submission. They should actually be doing checks like that for EVERY submission but I'll settle for a few now and then.
And, adding a nofollow to the link with stop driving pagerank for the submission spammer's sites and hopefully they'll stop it and let regular submitters have a chance at contributing. The submission spammer's write-ups are often second-rate since they probably don't have time to think things through for every damned submission they send in.
Toss it. The reason those submitters earn their reputation is because you haven't killed his or her stories before. You need some kind of editorial policy where all your editors share the same basic guidelines for what to approve and what not to, and this should include a corpus of "known troublemakers". It's basic due diligence and should be as natural as looking a wee bit harder for dupes and checking the spelling and grammar one last time before hitting "Publish". And yes, add the "nofollow". It doesn't detract from the story one bit, but it does kill some of the story spammer's motivation.
I'd rather live without a good story completely than having it ruined by a discussion about the submitter.
There are plenty more stories in the sea, but there's just one Slashdot.
They added it fairly recently so I forgive you. It's in the Update Manager settings - "Display information about update process" and remember to select "Complete at next computer restart" too.
No, I'm Brian! Release me!
- Gee, Taco, I'm pisching drunk here. Schee thisch sctory here? I'm gonna appraprove it. *hic* Right nowish.
- Slow down, Cowboy, you're too drunk. Go login as Zonk first and no one'll notice.
- Good idea, bosch. I'm on it like... *hic* Whatever. Now, where did that wittle Schubmit button go? Here, button!
*IAA, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee. As long as you try to usurp copyright for your personal profits, we'll try to abolish it. And you can take that to the bank.
Pirates of the world - Unite!
Power to peer to peer!