The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 is not entirely disimilar from the DMCA.
A copy of the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest (crib notes for parliamentarians who are not lawyers is here for the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999
For what they say they want to do processing power needn't be excessive.
but heat buildup could be a real problem for reliablity.
I'd imagine passive cooling would be the order of the day too as even quiet fans, heat pumps, peltiers, or whatever would add another point of failure.
I'm just guessing but a less powerful (in every sense) set up might have made more sense for passively cooled mobile reliability.
A few months ago I looked into running a peercast strem of local original music from my city (Canberra, Australia).
One thing that struck me when I put out a call for interest was the willingness of local ISP's to host nodes.
Bear in mind the project was intended to be totally legit and din't proceed because too many of the local artists were already signed up by the copyright agency APRA.
Anything that makes people download more is in the ISP's interest if they've worked their cost base out properly.
Having said that the ones I spoke to were entirely conditional on the feed being unencumbered.
I've had no dealings with this mob so can't comment on their motivations.
I don't think he's ever expressed a desire to be king.
I'll admit I admire the way the man has saved the world from a potentially very dark place by sheer force of will and purpose and without anyone having to die.
Very few people have had the impact he's had with so little collateral damage.
You obviously feel personally threatened by the proposed model.
The point is that under stallmans model you aren't forced to trust anyone (although you may choose to).
Under your model people are forced to trust others.
The primacy today of the english speaking peoples has been a refusal to accept systems where trust is required.
That's not compatible with a world of pervasive secret software.
yes you can turn the code into a non-opensource product, but the code is still free, if someone else gets it (in a no copyright world) then they too can do what they want with it.
release it as anything they damn well please.
if there was no copyright no-one would have needed to invent the GPL.
That would be the "even the good stuff they very rarely produce" eh?
Plus the Smiths were long ago, so very far away, and couldn't get played on the radio in my part of the world until their songs started turning up in american TV.
*PLUS* I was quoting the chapter heading of Irvine Welsh's "Trainspotting" if you must know;-)
(albeit originally derived from the truly excellent Smiths song
I'm sure there's a bar in your area where they hang out and play.
In my community (Canberra, Australia, pop 300,000) there are 5 or 6 bars where original musicans play regularly and two or three compilation disks a year of their material, plus the individual artists produce their own CD's,
we had 300 artists enter last years compeition by a major national radio station. If we peg the average band size at 3 thats one entry for every 333 people. There are a *LOT* of musicians out there, most of them are very good.
distribution is what the record companies are clinging onto so don't think thats going to be easy until the war is won.
MP3.com is mostly comprised now of musicians who aren't signed and want people to hear their stuff.
One Canberra band who I eprsonally rate highly are Trouser Trouser here or here. for mp3's.
Making it easier for you to listen to their crap than finding the alternatives is what keeps the recording industry in business.
stop listening to the drek the record companies churn out as part of their protection racket.
There are great artists in all but the smallest local communities, they are turning our good quality CD's in their garages (seriously).
How all the Open Source Zealots (of which I am proudly one) justify refusing to use MS's products while they still propagate the popularity of the record compaines (who are far more exploitative than MS ever was, how many MS coding billionaires are there? a lot more than singing billionaires) is hard to credit.
Illegal file trading is just the same as running cracked copies of proprietary software.
And there's a bloody good local alternative thats going to get a lot better if you support it.
Let them have their crap music (and even the good stuff they very rarely produce) and get on with building a better alternative.
And you'd be mad to take part in this amnesty, it only applies if they don't know about you, in which case, why put your hand up?
Slashdot Mirror
yes but infringing copyright is NOT a crime.
in Australia (which we're talking about) a crime is covered by the Crimes Act
Copyright infringement is a civil NOT criminal matter and is covered by the Copyright Act.
there's a difference between writing a letter saying
"please remove a link from your site because it links to a site we beleive is in violation of the DMCA" (as unreasonable as even that sounds)
and kicking down their door in a dawn raid and dragging their computers away because they are incorrectly suspected of infringement.
I imagine they will be able to sue whoever took out the Anton Pillar order for quite a lot.
A more promising target would be any LAN day across australia, now there is a field of file and porn trading to make your hair go white.
The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 is not entirely disimilar from the DMCA.
A copy of the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest (crib notes for parliamentarians who are not lawyers is here for the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999
and while subverting a copyright mechanism is a crime. breaching copyright is a civil matter.
Most MP3's come from CD's with no copyright mechanism so there is NO CRIME being committed.
Yes you can be sued by the copyright holder, but that's a different kettle of fish.
i think in the iraqi desert you'd be glad of minimal heat output regardless of what technology is going to cool it.
and lets not forget thermal imaging while we're about it.
rather hard to move undetected through the night when your handheld is casting off 50 watts.
Unless America is only planning to ever fight cruddy little third world countries during the life of this machine?
For what they say they want to do processing power needn't be excessive.
but heat buildup could be a real problem for reliablity.
I'd imagine passive cooling would be the order of the day too as even quiet fans, heat pumps, peltiers, or whatever would add another point of failure.
I'm just guessing but a less powerful (in every sense) set up might have made more sense for passively cooled mobile reliability.
A few months ago I looked into running a peercast strem of local original music from my city (Canberra, Australia).
One thing that struck me when I put out a call for interest was the willingness of local ISP's to host nodes.
Bear in mind the project was intended to be totally legit and din't proceed because too many of the local artists were already signed up by the copyright agency APRA.
Anything that makes people download more is in the ISP's interest if they've worked their cost base out properly.
Having said that the ones I spoke to were entirely conditional on the feed being unencumbered.
I've had no dealings with this mob so can't comment on their motivations.
go to jail?
copyright breach is civil suit with civil damages.
it is not a crime.
DMCA is different again and a rather large re-write of the whole system of western justice.
the bits are not owned, they are copyrighted.
copyright infringement is not theft, theft is a crime that in most countries is governed by completely different legislation.
and anyone would be able to reverse engineer it, decompile it, or just give away the binaries to their friends
there would be no incentive to produce closed software.
Actually I'm praising english speakers for being untrusting.
So, why not just use the BSD Licence?
because we have copyright law of course.
I don't think he's ever expressed a desire to be king.
I'll admit I admire the way the man has saved the world from a potentially very dark place by sheer force of will and purpose and without anyone having to die.
Very few people have had the impact he's had with so little collateral damage.
You obviously feel personally threatened by the proposed model.
The point is that under stallmans model you aren't forced to trust anyone (although you may choose to).
Under your model people are forced to trust others.
The primacy today of the english speaking peoples has been a refusal to accept systems where trust is required.
That's not compatible with a world of pervasive secret software.
while I hesitate to speak for others,
my understanding is that stallman believes that the moral thing for you to do is to release the source.
that does not necesarily mean you should be forced to do so on pain of incarceration.
Of course it also means he thinks it would be immoral for others to choose to use your closed software.
don't mistake important things like right and wrong for trivial things like the current law of the day.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
"he wants to make it illegal to distribute something without source code -- even if I wrote the thing myself"
only if you wrote it and used other people's GPL'd code.
My understanding is that those provisions are defensive in the current environment.
Without copyright anyone could redistribute and use your binaries tho, so why not release the source?
the GPL is a response to copyright.
yes you can turn the code into a non-opensource product, but the code is still free, if someone else gets it (in a no copyright world) then they too can do what they want with it.
release it as anything they damn well please.
if there was no copyright no-one would have needed to invent the GPL.
yes but no-one would be forced to use their rotten binaries.
GPL is primarily a social contract, as I said, teh copyright aspects are primarily defensive.
i *have* read the colelcted essays of RMS - whether I understood them properly only time will tell.
My understanding is that the GPL is a response to copyright laws.
nothing.
nothing to stop you compiling and selling a GPL'd work right now.
Right now you can't claim ownership and stop other people redistributing it (for free or by sale).
If there were no copyright you wouldn't have to worry about that.
GPL is a defensive copyright.
if we abolished all copyright (and patents) completely then we wouldn't need GPL.
Therefore it is not inconsistent to be against copyright and for GPL copyleft.
australian trains are slow and sad.
heavily unionised workforce slowly throttling the life out of their own indsutry.
Yes the world is still waiting for that talented musician with a moral bone in their body.
But until the messiah arrives creating a viable market for independent music is a way forward.
A moderate amount of ego stroking and money would keep msot of the better musicians happy.
The record company magic carpet ride could become just a tar baby for the real wankers out there.
I thought that was what I was suggesting?
That would be the "even the good stuff they very rarely produce" eh?
;-)
Plus the Smiths were long ago, so very far away, and couldn't get played on the radio in my part of the world until their songs started turning up in american TV.
*PLUS* I was quoting the chapter heading of Irvine Welsh's "Trainspotting" if you must know
(albeit originally derived from the truly excellent Smiths song
Give me convenince or give me death?
I'm sure there's a bar in your area where they hang out and play.
In my community (Canberra, Australia, pop 300,000) there are 5 or 6 bars where original musicans play regularly and two or three compilation disks a year of their material, plus the individual artists produce their own CD's,
we had 300 artists enter last years compeition by a major national radio station. If we peg the average band size at 3 thats one entry for every 333 people. There are a *LOT* of musicians out there, most of them are very good.
distribution is what the record companies are clinging onto so don't think thats going to be easy until the war is won.
MP3.com is mostly comprised now of musicians who aren't signed and want people to hear their stuff.
One Canberra band who I eprsonally rate highly are Trouser Trouser here or here. for mp3's.
Making it easier for you to listen to their crap than finding the alternatives is what keeps the recording industry in business.
For Gods sake people,
stop listening to the drek the record companies churn out as part of their protection racket.
There are great artists in all but the smallest local communities, they are turning our good quality CD's in their garages (seriously).
How all the Open Source Zealots (of which I am proudly one) justify refusing to use MS's products while they still propagate the popularity of the record compaines (who are far more exploitative than MS ever was, how many MS coding billionaires are there? a lot more than singing billionaires) is hard to credit.
Illegal file trading is just the same as running cracked copies of proprietary software.
And there's a bloody good local alternative thats going to get a lot better if you support it.
Let them have their crap music (and even the good stuff they very rarely produce) and get on with building a better alternative.
And you'd be mad to take part in this amnesty, it only applies if they don't know about you, in which case, why put your hand up?