Hmmm. That is hard to say. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA are evil. The CTEA is certainly evil. So, it depends on whether the parent was talking about part of copyright or all of copyright. You are attempting to corner the parent into an all or nothing argument.
Copyright itself, is nothing more than a limited monopoly on an intangible product. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with preventing people from illegal copying.
So the question is not cornering the parent. In asking, "Is copyright evil?" the DMCA doesn't come into play at all.
The GPL would not be necessary in the absence of copyright. Think about that. I am not advocating the total removal of copyright from the law books, but the GPL is a response to the draconian control that is a grotesque feature of modern copyright law in many countries. Laws are supposed to protect our freedom, not take it away.
You're almost right. Without copyright, the GPL would be meaningless. With copyright, all rights are reserved by default, and then the author grants rights to the people who receive a copy of the work. With the GPL, the rights that are given away come at a price--if you make changes and redistribute, you must redistribute under the GPL. Without copyrights, I could receive source code from Linus, make changes, then redistribute as binary-only. He would have no recourse to stop me, because with no copyright, I'm allowed to do whatever I want with the "intellectual property". Software licenses in general, including the GPL, would be meaningless.
Nice way to get your point across--just avoid the next sentence which does provide, if not extra justification, clarification of the sentence. In the very next sentence, I said that we wouldn't have the same variety.
Just too bad the Sheepdots who moderate didn't read my post before modding yours up.
"Win this battle." Do you think copyrights are evil? You know that copyrights are precisely what makes the GPL valid, don't you? Maybe you're just a general anarchist....
Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc. The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content. Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there. Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.
Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.
But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.
I don't think that privacy policies are legally binding, anyway, so what's the point?
Re:All I need is a great sub-notebook
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 1
What sort of GLXGears score do you get with that? It does sound quite good:)
Re:All I need is a great sub-notebook
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 1
Forgot to add a pointy-stick instead of a touchpad. I hate touchpads.
Re:All I need is a great sub-notebook
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've wanted a small notebook for some time. My wishlist:
1. No larger than 12", no heavier than 5.5 lbs. 2. 1024x768ish resolution. 3. Integrated 802.11g, ethernet, modem, USB, and DVD-Rom. 4. A decent, 3D accelerated graphics card. 5. Linux compatible for 99% of the hardware.
Bonus points if it has a keyboard that has Insert/Delete/Pageup/Pagedown/Home/End in a reasonable place, a serial port, and a CF/SD reader.
So far, I've found only one laptop that even comes close to what I want, and that's the Vaio S-series. I just don't want to buy a Sony computer, though...too many horror stories, and they really are more expensive than they need to be for the hardware you're getting. But they're the only notebook this size with anything above an ATI Radeon 9000 mobility. I guess it's the heat, but man, I really want a small form-factor notebook with at least a 9600, preferably 9800.
Apparently most of you have high-security jobs that require you to leave pocket knives at home.
My day-to-day life doesn't have any problem whatsoever. I have a pocket knife on my keychain that I never have to remove--last time I did was when I went on vacation. Not a big deal.
The point is about choice. Not everyone has a job where they have to travel a lot. Not everyone would have to risk losing this knife at a security check (and note that the USB portion is detatchable, so even if some fluke occurred and you did have to leave it, you could take your data).
Point is, though, if you don't want the knife, don't get it. Use a different USB drive. I don't have the restrictions you have due to, apparently, so don't complain that a company is selling a product I might want to by. Choice, people. It's about choice. When they stop making USB drives except for those on a knife, then you can start complaining.
What we need are fully configurable keyboards. Put an LCD on every key. Then my keys can change with the font I'm using..I can replace the Windows key with anything I want..when I boot Knoppix-DE by mistake, I'll know where to find the keys to change the language..etc.
Oh, that's right, it was LinuxTag.. Regardless, it's just strange. There was a special DVD of 3.4 before the CD version of 3.4 was released...seeing 3.6 just took me by surprise.
Ah well, I usually remaster anyway. Nice to be able to put it all in ram, and I don't care for KDE:)
I know there was a Ce'bit edition....
on
Knoppix 3.6 released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Lots of laws get passed to add penalties, plus you missed the DRM part of my post. DRM has one of the strongest chances of seriously cutting piracy and other illicit computer use significantly, and yet it's a serious hamper to Fair Use.
I don't like the idea that when I go to buy something, I'm at least slightly influenced by what I watched on TV (which is why I almost never watch it). I'd like to know that I bought my stuff because I decided on my own it was what would work for me, and not because some marketer drilled it into my head.
I would say that you're influenced on a subconcious level by things you'd never even realize. Maybe the aesthetics of something that should be chosen strictly for it's functional value, for example. Maybe you heard a coworker mention the product before but forgot it...yet the nagging familiarity draws you towards that product instead of another. The best way to do things is to always thoroughly research a product and maybe even list out the pros and cons of competing products so that you always choose based on an educated dection. This way you don't have to miss out on life --not talking about ads, here, just anything that might, in a miniscule way, influence your decision unfairly--.
Nope. This has nothing to do with law. My use of a company's public web server is in no way conditioned by any kind of law or legal agreement that says that I have to do something specific with the bits they send me. I don't see how your laptop has anything to do with that.
And I didn't bring the law into it. I said immoral. If a company pays the bandwidth for a website in return for a small bit of screen real estate in which to show an ad to the viewer, it could be considered immoral to trick them into thinking you'd viewed an ad so your favorite website gets paid. I didn't say anything about agreements of your company's public webserver, and I didn't say anything about the law.
Pfft. They can keep their "experience" for themselves. I don't look for strange blurry things like "experience", but much more identifiable ones like "information" and "data transfer".
Then you will likely get left behind on the web, where glitz and flash bring everyone in and sooner or later, the most popular websites will get around ad-blocking leechers.
Avoiding to load ads really solves nothing on the long run. The advertiser probably doesn't care at all. The site simply doesn't get paid, so who'd be concerned is whoever hosts the ads. I'm sure the advertisers are really happy to let the sites deal with that. And it all ends in an unending race of blockers vs advertisers.
Sorry, I missed the part where ads were inherently a bad thing. The only thing I dislike about ads are the really flashy annoying huge ones that take up too much of my bandwidth and distract me from the page. Google Ads, as a counterexample, are lovely.
This on the other hand, directly messes with the advertiser, who will have absolutely no way of finding what part of their statistics are good and which aren't. That'd bring Internet advertising on the same level as ads in magazines and TV, and perhaps contribute to the elimination of concepts like "pay per click".
Oh, so you don't like tracking, is that it? That's why I don't let ad-servers set cookies.
I don't really consider it immoral. The advertisers should actually *expect* this to happen.
Yes. I expect that if I leave my laptop in plain sight in my car with the windows rolled down, that it won't be there when I return. So since I expect it, it's not immoral of someone to steal it. Gotcha.
After all, there's absolutely nothing in the HTTP protocol that says what I have to do with the images after they loaded, or that anything at all should be shown on screen. IMHO, using wget is as valid as using Mozilla.
The HTTP protocol is blurred most of the time to say the least. The hot thing now is selling the experience of using a website, which can include a lot of features that are not a part of the HTTP protocol.
That would defeat my reason for blocking them--cutting down on my bandwidth. Not everyone has 100mbps connections directly to the backbone, you know.... On the other hand, until the advertisers caught on, it'd be a great way to help your favorite website make a few extra $$$ every month, since clickthroughs are where the money is. And you're making the ad-hosting server waste money at the same time. Still, defrauding these companies might be considered slightly immoral.
No, it would mean that they were claiming that the system didn't work, but it would help them lobby for more strict laws about DRM, copyrights, etc, which would be a bad thing (in my opinion).
So for curiousity sake, has anyone cracked the passwords?
Re:'Flaws' Not that big of a deal
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That's a very interesting point. "Zones" in Windows seem to be a feature slightly too technical for your average user (the ones who might really benefit if it was implemented well) but completely useless and potentially burdensome to people with even a moderate level of computer knowledge. That makes it an almost worthless feature, in my book. The novices won't know how to use it, and the experts won't care to.
Re:'Flaws' Not that big of a deal
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think it's a bigger deal than you think.
The issue at hand is that there exists a way to execute programs without checking the ZoneIDs. That's less secure than desirable. All methods of execution should be secured. There are bound to be scenarios where this could be exploited that don't involve the user opening up a cmd window and typing the command.
That said, yeah yeah yeah, Windows isn't secure, blah blah blah, Linux rules, etc.
Re:To point out the obvious (not a conspiracy theo
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Believe it or not, there are a LOT of people who would buy the special editions because "they're the special editions!" Most of the sheeple believe marketing hype and I bet even a few of them like the changes. I'd even bet even money that the purists are in the minority; they're just in the majority here because of the demographic.
It's not lying. They aren't preventing anyone from doing anything legal (granted by the license). They/asked/ people not to distribute it that way, but they sought no legal action.
In fact, the license says upfront why they provide the CVS and that they would prefer that people not use it to distribute binaries, etc. They ask that you don't do it, but they can't stop you. All they can do is threaten to stop offering the CVS.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. That is hard to say. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA are evil. The CTEA is certainly evil. So, it depends on whether the parent was talking about part of copyright or all of copyright. You are attempting to corner the parent into an all or nothing argument.
Copyright itself, is nothing more than a limited monopoly on an intangible product. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with preventing people from illegal copying.
So the question is not cornering the parent. In asking, "Is copyright evil?" the DMCA doesn't come into play at all.
The GPL would not be necessary in the absence of copyright. Think about that. I am not advocating the total removal of copyright from the law books, but the GPL is a response to the draconian control that is a grotesque feature of modern copyright law in many countries. Laws are supposed to protect our freedom, not take it away.
You're almost right. Without copyright, the GPL would be meaningless. With copyright, all rights are reserved by default, and then the author grants rights to the people who receive a copy of the work. With the GPL, the rights that are given away come at a price--if you make changes and redistribute, you must redistribute under the GPL. Without copyrights, I could receive source code from Linus, make changes, then redistribute as binary-only. He would have no recourse to stop me, because with no copyright, I'm allowed to do whatever I want with the "intellectual property". Software licenses in general, including the GPL, would be meaningless.
Nice way to get your point across--just avoid the next sentence which does provide, if not extra justification, clarification of the sentence. In the very next sentence, I said that we wouldn't have the same variety.
Just too bad the Sheepdots who moderate didn't read my post before modding yours up.
"Win this battle." Do you think copyrights are evil? You know that copyrights are precisely what makes the GPL valid, don't you? Maybe you're just a general anarchist....
Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc. The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content. Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there. Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.
Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.
But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.
I don't think that privacy policies are legally binding, anyway, so what's the point?
What sort of GLXGears score do you get with that? It does sound quite good :)
Forgot to add a pointy-stick instead of a touchpad. I hate touchpads.
I've wanted a small notebook for some time. My wishlist:
1. No larger than 12", no heavier than 5.5 lbs.
2. 1024x768ish resolution.
3. Integrated 802.11g, ethernet, modem, USB, and DVD-Rom.
4. A decent, 3D accelerated graphics card.
5. Linux compatible for 99% of the hardware.
Bonus points if it has a keyboard that has Insert/Delete/Pageup/Pagedown/Home/End in a reasonable place, a serial port, and a CF/SD reader.
So far, I've found only one laptop that even comes close to what I want, and that's the Vaio S-series. I just don't want to buy a Sony computer, though...too many horror stories, and they really are more expensive than they need to be for the hardware you're getting. But they're the only notebook this size with anything above an ATI Radeon 9000 mobility. I guess it's the heat, but man, I really want a small form-factor notebook with at least a 9600, preferably 9800.
Apparently most of you have high-security jobs that require you to leave pocket knives at home.
My day-to-day life doesn't have any problem whatsoever. I have a pocket knife on my keychain that I never have to remove--last time I did was when I went on vacation. Not a big deal.
The point is about choice. Not everyone has a job where they have to travel a lot. Not everyone would have to risk losing this knife at a security check (and note that the USB portion is detatchable, so even if some fluke occurred and you did have to leave it, you could take your data).
Point is, though, if you don't want the knife, don't get it. Use a different USB drive. I don't have the restrictions you have due to, apparently, so don't complain that a company is selling a product I might want to by. Choice, people. It's about choice. When they stop making USB drives except for those on a knife, then you can start complaining.
Too bad those are illegal under the DMCA as an anticircumvention device....
Sure, it's got 1GB of storage, but so do a whole slew of other services now. Why not hammer Hotmail or Yahoo's servers and leave Google's alone? :)
What we need are fully configurable keyboards. Put an LCD on every key. Then my keys can change with the font I'm using..I can replace the Windows key with anything I want..when I boot Knoppix-DE by mistake, I'll know where to find the keys to change the language..etc.
Oh, that's right, it was LinuxTag..
:)
Regardless, it's just strange. There was a special DVD of 3.4 before the CD version of 3.4 was released...seeing 3.6 just took me by surprise.
Ah well, I usually remaster anyway. Nice to be able to put it all in ram, and I don't care for KDE
but whatever happened to 3.5?
Lots of laws get passed to add penalties, plus you missed the DRM part of my post. DRM has one of the strongest chances of seriously cutting piracy and other illicit computer use significantly, and yet it's a serious hamper to Fair Use.
I don't like the idea that when I go to buy something, I'm at least slightly influenced by what I watched on TV (which is why I almost never watch it). I'd like to know that I bought my stuff because I decided on my own it was what would work for me, and not because some marketer drilled it into my head.
I would say that you're influenced on a subconcious level by things you'd never even realize. Maybe the aesthetics of something that should be chosen strictly for it's functional value, for example. Maybe you heard a coworker mention the product before but forgot it...yet the nagging familiarity draws you towards that product instead of another.
The best way to do things is to always thoroughly research a product and maybe even list out the pros and cons of competing products so that you always choose based on an educated dection. This way you don't have to miss out on life --not talking about ads, here, just anything that might, in a miniscule way, influence your decision unfairly--.
Nope. This has nothing to do with law. My use of a company's public web server is in no way conditioned by any kind of law or legal agreement that says that I have to do something specific with the bits they send me. I don't see how your laptop has anything to do with that.
And I didn't bring the law into it. I said immoral. If a company pays the bandwidth for a website in return for a small bit of screen real estate in which to show an ad to the viewer, it could be considered immoral to trick them into thinking you'd viewed an ad so your favorite website gets paid. I didn't say anything about agreements of your company's public webserver, and I didn't say anything about the law.
Pfft. They can keep their "experience" for themselves. I don't look for strange blurry things like "experience", but much more identifiable ones like "information" and "data transfer".
Then you will likely get left behind on the web, where glitz and flash bring everyone in and sooner or later, the most popular websites will get around ad-blocking leechers.
Avoiding to load ads really solves nothing on the long run. The advertiser probably doesn't care at all. The site simply doesn't get paid, so who'd be concerned is whoever hosts the ads. I'm sure the advertisers are really happy to let the sites deal with that. And it all ends in an unending race of blockers vs advertisers.
Sorry, I missed the part where ads were inherently a bad thing. The only thing I dislike about ads are the really flashy annoying huge ones that take up too much of my bandwidth and distract me from the page. Google Ads, as a counterexample, are lovely.
This on the other hand, directly messes with the advertiser, who will have absolutely no way of finding what part of their statistics are good and which aren't. That'd bring Internet advertising on the same level as ads in magazines and TV, and perhaps contribute to the elimination of concepts like "pay per click".
Oh, so you don't like tracking, is that it? That's why I don't let ad-servers set cookies.
I don't really consider it immoral. The advertisers should actually *expect* this to happen.
Yes. I expect that if I leave my laptop in plain sight in my car with the windows rolled down, that it won't be there when I return. So since I expect it, it's not immoral of someone to steal it. Gotcha.
After all, there's absolutely nothing in the HTTP protocol that says what I have to do with the images after they loaded, or that anything at all should be shown on screen. IMHO, using wget is as valid as using Mozilla.
The HTTP protocol is blurred most of the time to say the least. The hot thing now is selling the experience of using a website, which can include a lot of features that are not a part of the HTTP protocol.
That would defeat my reason for blocking them--cutting down on my bandwidth. Not everyone has 100mbps connections directly to the backbone, you know....
On the other hand, until the advertisers caught on, it'd be a great way to help your favorite website make a few extra $$$ every month, since clickthroughs are where the money is. And you're making the ad-hosting server waste money at the same time.
Still, defrauding these companies might be considered slightly immoral.
No, it would mean that they were claiming that the system didn't work, but it would help them lobby for more strict laws about DRM, copyrights, etc, which would be a bad thing (in my opinion).
Boycotting it won't work. They'll just claim that the lost sales were due to piracy.
Remember, real pirates will be able to pirate/distribute the game. Your casual user won't.
So for curiousity sake, has anyone cracked the passwords?
That's a very interesting point. "Zones" in Windows seem to be a feature slightly too technical for your average user (the ones who might really benefit if it was implemented well) but completely useless and potentially burdensome to people with even a moderate level of computer knowledge. That makes it an almost worthless feature, in my book. The novices won't know how to use it, and the experts won't care to.
I think it's a bigger deal than you think.
The issue at hand is that there exists a way to execute programs without checking the ZoneIDs. That's less secure than desirable. All methods of execution should be secured. There are bound to be scenarios where this could be exploited that don't involve the user opening up a cmd window and typing the command.
That said, yeah yeah yeah, Windows isn't secure, blah blah blah, Linux rules, etc.
Believe it or not, there are a LOT of people who would buy the special editions because "they're the special editions!" Most of the sheeple believe marketing hype and I bet even a few of them like the changes. I'd even bet even money that the purists are in the minority; they're just in the majority here because of the demographic.
It's not lying. They aren't preventing anyone from doing anything legal (granted by the license). They /asked/ people not to distribute it that way, but they sought no legal action.
In fact, the license says upfront why they provide the CVS and that they would prefer that people not use it to distribute binaries, etc. They ask that you don't do it, but they can't stop you. All they can do is threaten to stop offering the CVS.
Sure, if you're talking about search results. But we're not talking about search results, we're talking about ads.