How to Single-Handedly Obsolete Piracy and Earn Record Profits without Criminalizing your Customers and Building a PR Track Record Worse than Beelzebub's: provide video files in MPEG4/DivX/whatever reasonably universal format, without DRM expropriating our computers, for a reasonable price, offer fast download speeds (at least fast enough to stream) and offer it worldwide.
Wouldn't work, unless by 'reasonable price' you mean something even third world countries could afford. Even if they sell movies for 1 cent, citisens of many third-world countries in the world simply can't purchuase them, becaouse their payments/credit cards are not accepted.
The only way to obsolete piracy is to abolish copyright (and then, invent new way to support creation of IP which will not create artificial restrictions in sharing of information)
You know it didn't. The people pirating stuff will ALMOST NEVER buy the content if they can't get it for free. In other news, Libraries have seen a massive increase in requests for library cards...
I have completely contradicting experience. Pirates spend more money on legal media purchuases then average Joe. They use their pirate channels to try large ammount of media content, then they support creators they like by visiting cinema/life performance or buying discs.
When you cut the pirate channels, they will try fewer items and as a consequence, they will buy fewer items legaly.
I'll never understand your mindset. Why is image so important for you?
You are basically saying, that if you had to choose between a honest guy in pirate outfit and corrupted crook in expensive suit with good image in mainstream media, you'd choose the later.
I think the argument is that the stimulation and access the environment provides wouldn't be available if it weren't for the employment therefore it belongs to the employer.
It doesnt realy matter if you invent something on your own or using company equipment. The invention is always yours unless you explicitely transfer the IP rights to the company (in your contract for example)
Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.
Experts are not divided on this issue. Scientific consensus on global warming states, that it is 90% likely that current warming trend is caused by Humans emmiting green house gases to the atmosphere. See wiki for details.
Saying that scientists are divided on global warming issues is like saying that scientists are divided on evolution issue, because some religious nuts are denying it.
I've never seen RMS behaving like an asshole. On the other hand, you calling him asshole is pretty assholish. My i ask why are you behaving like asshole?
If you had to choose between a world with current form of copyright law (where sharing is strongly discouraged but licences like GPL can exploit it) and a world where copyright is abolished completely (sharing is much more common, but GPL is not enforcable and vendor lock-ins can exist), what would your choice be?
If you could reform copyright any way you want, what changes would you make?
You're giving someone money with the expectation that, if the enterprise they're spending your money on succeeds, you'll receive your initial investment back, plus some.
What if the enterprise doesn't succeed? I'll lose all my money. Doesn't seem like a good plan for pension savings.
If you disincentivize investing, all that grinds to a halt. Nobody can buy a house, because there's no money in mortgages
I don't understand. Some people put their savings in a bank. Bank lend this money to other people, who want them for example for their house. There is no need for any investment in order for banks to be able to lend money.
There could be no policy requiring students to wear them when not at school.
Well the article states twice, they are required to wear the thing all the times. On the other hand, it states nowhere, that it is required only in school. I have not visited the other links pointing to the student locator project website as they are currently not working. What is your assumption based on?
I know, that requiring school kids to wear tracking devices all the time sounds stupid, bud in the case of USA, i wouldn't be suprised by anything.
Of course, if they require them to have the card only in school, it's probably OK.
I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"? I would say that the greed of the owners of the Tolkien estate is doing more irreparable harm to the Tolkien legacy than the release of a fucking slot machine. After this, I would rather put $10 into a LotR slot machine than towards a ticket to see the upcoming Hobbit movie.
Dunno if LOTR slot gambling machines would harm sales of Tolkien novels (i doubt it). The issue here is, how much control does the estate have over the derived works. In my opinion, when i see a movie or read a book, the ideas, persons etc. become part of my thoughts and i should be free to use them in any derivative work i please as long as i'm not pretenting to be original author.
This blatant censorship, which copyright enables, is IMO wrong and it is often abused to suppress works based on moral belives of the original author or his estate. For example i visited movie festival few years ago, where movie Bibliothèque Pascal was screened and the director himself had a talk with the audience after the movie. He said, he had to take out one complete part of the movie, because he used some well-known quotes from Saint-Exuperys Little Prince in it and the estate was against it, because the movie was about prostitute and they didn't want the name 'little prince' associated with it.
The problem is, that well known works of art are becoming part of our collective consciousness long before the copyright on them expires. It is IMO wrong to forbid the society to build upon and extend those ideas by some rigid copyright holders.
In this case, the girl is minor for whom the school is assuming responsibility during school hours and it is *expected* that they will be supervising her at all times.
So do they require her to wear the badge only during school hours or all the time (even outside of school). The article suggests that they want her to wear the badge all the time, in the school and also outside of school:
After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times
After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times
How does it means only during school hours? The article clearly states that they also want to track students outside of school and i'd refuse that too.
Schools shouldn't be allowed to track children everywhere they go. But since they are charged with the education and well-being of these kids for a certain portion of the day, is it unreasonable that they ask children (and others) to carry an RFID card while on the premises? I fail to see what principle of freedom or privacy is violated by the requirement to carry an ID card (with or without a chip) at school.
I agree with you, but in this case the school wants to track the students everywhere (the students are required to wear the RFID badges all the time, according to TFA)
Is your boss tracking you with an RFID chip? Would you like it if he did?
Yes, actually, in the form of a pass card. How is this different from those cards most people use every day at work? It's not even as if she has to bring it anywhere away from school or anything like that.
If you read the article, you'll find out that the school wants the children to wear the ID badge all the time, not just at school.
Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so the question is a bit silly. But the universe 13.3 billion years ago (420 million years old) was already quite big, or it could not have been forming galaxies. (I don't have numbers, but the exponential inflationary period was definitely much earlier. After that growth glowed down for a couple of billion years, and now it's speeding up again because of dark matter ).
Just to correct your post: universe is now expanding because of dark energy, not matter. Without dark energy, dark matter would just shrink together because of gravity.
Also, the inflantionary period lasted fractions of second after big bang. More specificaly from wiki: "It lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^33 and 10^32 seconds".
Also, a large part of the medications used today originated at publicly funded universities.
And many of these universities patent and license their work as well. Revenue from these licenses help fund medical/pharma research and the university in general.
The result of this is, that common people are paying twice for results of those universities research. Firstly in the form of tax subsidies, secondly as part of the price of the licenced products.
Taking public money for research and not providing the results of this research to the public should be IMO illegal.
Clearly something exists since it does exist and have value. So either your argument is over the nomenclature, or the philosophy. If the former, fine - invent your own nomenclature. If the latter, you have to recognise that people labour long and hard to produce 'something'. The question is whether those people should have any ability to take ownersship of the 'something' that they produce.
Sure, they should have ability to take ownership of the 'something' that they produce. GP is not disputing that. But they should not be able to take ownership of every copy of the 'something' that other humans make.
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
Sure, but we can invent system of compensations for authors which would not artificaly limit distribution of information.
Why don't the channels just broadcast the programme data alongside the actual programming? That's how they do it here, in the DVB-T streams. A full week's worth of programming and programme descriptions, transmitted over the air.
In most of the EU - it's copyright issue. Unlike in US, compilations or lists of data can be copyrighted (phone books, tv guides). TV stations sell their program guides to exclusive third parties, which then make compilations of TV guide data available for hefty price to cable broadcasters, tv magazines etc.
There were attempts by volunteers to make EPG data available for free on web in xml format but vere quickly squashed by legal threads.
If you base a business on breaking the law, it has zero future earning potential, as Kim Dotfuck is now finding out.
It's sad, that providing service for sharing information is considered criminal by some. Let's hope his me.ga follow up will be successful and will finaly provide simple and safe way to share your data with anyone on the internet without the fear of overzealous automatic guard robots taking it down like on youtube.
Slashdot Mirror
How to Single-Handedly Obsolete Piracy and Earn Record Profits without Criminalizing your Customers and Building a PR Track Record Worse than Beelzebub's: provide video files in MPEG4/DivX/whatever reasonably universal format, without DRM expropriating our computers, for a reasonable price, offer fast download speeds (at least fast enough to stream) and offer it worldwide.
Wouldn't work, unless by 'reasonable price' you mean something even third world countries could afford. Even if they sell movies for 1 cent, citisens of many third-world countries in the world simply can't purchuase them, becaouse their payments/credit cards are not accepted.
The only way to obsolete piracy is to abolish copyright (and then, invent new way to support creation of IP which will not create artificial restrictions in sharing of information)
You know it didn't. The people pirating stuff will ALMOST NEVER buy the content if they can't get it for free. In other news, Libraries have seen a massive increase in requests for library cards...
I have completely contradicting experience. Pirates spend more money on legal media purchuases then average Joe. They use their pirate channels to try large ammount of media content, then they support creators they like by visiting cinema/life performance or buying discs.
When you cut the pirate channels, they will try fewer items and as a consequence, they will buy fewer items legaly.
I'm not voting for some guy in a pirate outfit.
I'll never understand your mindset. Why is image so important for you?
You are basically saying, that if you had to choose between a honest guy in pirate outfit and corrupted crook in expensive suit with good image in mainstream media, you'd choose the later.
I think the argument is that the stimulation and access the environment provides wouldn't be available if it weren't for the employment therefore it belongs to the employer.
It doesnt realy matter if you invent something on your own or using company equipment. The invention is always yours unless you explicitely transfer the IP rights to the company (in your contract for example)
Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.
Experts are not divided on this issue. Scientific consensus on global warming states, that it is 90% likely that current warming trend is caused by Humans emmiting green house gases to the atmosphere. See wiki for details.
Saying that scientists are divided on global warming issues is like saying that scientists are divided on evolution issue, because some religious nuts are denying it.
Why look like a tramp and behave like an asshole?
I've never seen RMS behaving like an asshole. On the other hand, you calling him asshole is pretty assholish. My i ask why are you behaving like asshole?
If you had to choose between a world with current form of copyright law (where sharing is strongly discouraged but licences like GPL can exploit it) and a world where copyright is abolished completely (sharing is much more common, but GPL is not enforcable and vendor lock-ins can exist), what would your choice be?
If you could reform copyright any way you want, what changes would you make?
Hi, I'm a normal person, this has never, ever been a problem for me. Tell me again, what problem does this solve for people like me?
You are probably not a normal person from third-world country, from which payments on the internet are not usually accepted.
You're giving someone money with the expectation that, if the enterprise they're spending your money on succeeds, you'll receive your initial investment back, plus some.
What if the enterprise doesn't succeed? I'll lose all my money. Doesn't seem like a good plan for pension savings.
If you disincentivize investing, all that grinds to a halt. Nobody can buy a house, because there's no money in mortgages
I don't understand. Some people put their savings in a bank. Bank lend this money to other people, who want them for example for their house. There is no need for any investment in order for banks to be able to lend money.
You are obviously a complete idiot
You obviously lack proper manners.
There could be no policy requiring students to wear them when not at school.
Well the article states twice, they are required to wear the thing all the times. On the other hand, it states nowhere, that it is required only in school. I have not visited the other links pointing to the student locator project website as they are currently not working. What is your assumption based on?
I know, that requiring school kids to wear tracking devices all the time sounds stupid, bud in the case of USA, i wouldn't be suprised by anything.
Of course, if they require them to have the card only in school, it's probably OK.
I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"? I would say that the greed of the owners of the Tolkien estate is doing more irreparable harm to the Tolkien legacy than the release of a fucking slot machine. After this, I would rather put $10 into a LotR slot machine than towards a ticket to see the upcoming Hobbit movie.
Dunno if LOTR slot gambling machines would harm sales of Tolkien novels (i doubt it). The issue here is, how much control does the estate have over the derived works. In my opinion, when i see a movie or read a book, the ideas, persons etc. become part of my thoughts and i should be free to use them in any derivative work i please as long as i'm not pretenting to be original author.
This blatant censorship, which copyright enables, is IMO wrong and it is often abused to suppress works based on moral belives of the original author or his estate. For example i visited movie festival few years ago, where movie Bibliothèque Pascal was screened and the director himself had a talk with the audience after the movie. He said, he had to take out one complete part of the movie, because he used some well-known quotes from Saint-Exuperys Little Prince in it and the estate was against it, because the movie was about prostitute and they didn't want the name 'little prince' associated with it.
The problem is, that well known works of art are becoming part of our collective consciousness long before the copyright on them expires. It is IMO wrong to forbid the society to build upon and extend those ideas by some rigid copyright holders.
In this case, the girl is minor for whom the school is assuming responsibility during school hours and it is *expected* that they will be supervising her at all times.
So do they require her to wear the badge only during school hours or all the time (even outside of school). The article suggests that they want her to wear the badge all the time, in the school and also outside of school:
After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times
Since the ID only applies during school hours
From the article:
After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times
How does it means only during school hours? The article clearly states that they also want to track students outside of school and i'd refuse that too.
Schools shouldn't be allowed to track children everywhere they go. But since they are charged with the education and well-being of these kids for a certain portion of the day, is it unreasonable that they ask children (and others) to carry an RFID card while on the premises? I fail to see what principle of freedom or privacy is violated by the requirement to carry an ID card (with or without a chip) at school.
I agree with you, but in this case the school wants to track the students everywhere (the students are required to wear the RFID badges all the time, according to TFA)
Is your boss tracking you with an RFID chip? Would you like it if he did?
Yes, actually, in the form of a pass card. How is this different from those cards most people use every day at work? It's not even as if she has to bring it anywhere away from school or anything like that.
If you read the article, you'll find out that the school wants the children to wear the ID badge all the time, not just at school.
Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so the question is a bit silly. But the universe 13.3 billion years ago (420 million years old) was already quite big, or it could not have been forming galaxies. (I don't have numbers, but the exponential inflationary period was definitely much earlier. After that growth glowed down for a couple of billion years, and now it's speeding up again because of dark matter ).
Just to correct your post: universe is now expanding because of dark energy, not matter. Without dark energy, dark matter would just shrink together because of gravity.
Also, the inflantionary period lasted fractions of second after big bang. More specificaly from wiki: "It lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^33 and 10^32 seconds".
Pretty strange isn't it?
Also, a large part of the medications used today originated at publicly funded universities.
And many of these universities patent and license their work as well. Revenue from these licenses help fund medical/pharma research and the university in general.
The result of this is, that common people are paying twice for results of those universities research. Firstly in the form of tax subsidies, secondly as part of the price of the licenced products.
Taking public money for research and not providing the results of this research to the public should be IMO illegal.
Clearly something exists since it does exist and have value. So either your argument is over the nomenclature, or the philosophy. If the former, fine - invent your own nomenclature. If the latter, you have to recognise that people labour long and hard to produce 'something'. The question is whether those people should have any ability to take ownersship of the 'something' that they produce.
Sure, they should have ability to take ownership of the 'something' that they produce. GP is not disputing that. But they should not be able to take ownership of every copy of the 'something' that other humans make.
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
Sure, but we can invent system of compensations for authors which would not artificaly limit distribution of information.
Just registered with them to try their free domain.
How do they count DNS queries, when i'm not using their name servers? (I'm using mine, check my new http://kalevala.tk/ domain)
Why don't the channels just broadcast the programme data alongside the actual programming? That's how they do it here, in the DVB-T streams. A full week's worth of programming and programme descriptions, transmitted over the air.
In most of the EU - it's copyright issue. Unlike in US, compilations or lists of data can be copyrighted (phone books, tv guides). TV stations sell their program guides to exclusive third parties, which then make compilations of TV guide data available for hefty price to cable broadcasters, tv magazines etc.
There were attempts by volunteers to make EPG data available for free on web in xml format but vere quickly squashed by legal threads.
The decision creates a potential [...] administrative nightmare for IT teams running email servers, back up and storage.
I wonder what nightmare could this decision create for IT admins... sounds like FUD to me.
I for one welcome this decision, similar legislation is in place where i live (EU - Czech Republic).
Personal correspondence belongs to the employee and employer should not be able to legaly read it without the emplyee's consent.
Bull fucking shit. This idea that employers do have economic power over most of their employees is idiotic, and extremely dangerous.
FTFY
Whoever loses.
We win.
How is the loss of megaupload and large amount of data not available anywhere else a win for you or me? Care to explain?
If you base a business on breaking the law, it has zero future earning potential, as Kim Dotfuck is now finding out.
It's sad, that providing service for sharing information is considered criminal by some.
Let's hope his me.ga follow up will be successful and will finaly provide simple and safe way to share your data with anyone on the internet without the fear of overzealous automatic guard robots taking it down like on youtube.