extremely high chance its not RMS, but some guy whose day job is at a huge corporation, "selling out" to the man. the whole thing is hypocrisy stuffed inside the asshole of elitism. most 'free software' is built by work-a-day nobodies who prefer anonymity and the act of building itself to any kind of idealistic horse shit.
if you look at who actually funds 'free software', a lot of it is the same big companies that are getting megabucks off of the surveillance state.
a company like Apple has to take responsibility for how its creations are used, and deal with privacy issues... but with free software the makes just claim 'not my problem' and continue their work without asking too many questions about where the money comes from.
what are the odds that drones contain free software? extremely high.
1. professors dont have power. at most universities, professors have become part-time hired hands with no health insurance, as the 'adjuncts' rapidly grow to dwarf the size of actual professors. tenure is a figment of the past, publish or perish, and on and on and on.
2. the 'slavish reproductions' take a lot of librarians, scholars, and workers a very long time to collect and scan, because paper archives are incomplete, damaged, full of misprints, etc etc etc. read the JSTOR book and you will understand what they had to do to make a 'canonical' archive to scan - they actually had to create their own paper library archive and then scan that, because the typical backfiles at a university library are incomplete, incorrect, badly catalogued, damaged, etc etc etc.
3. Everything before 1923 (or whatever year it is now) is in the public domain. There is no way to copyright those pages. I have taken stuff out of pre-1923 books from google books and put it on wikipedia (with a link back to google books) . There is nothing they can do to you.
AFTER 1923 US copyright law kicks in. But since you are tlaking about a UK journal, you also need to look at UK copyright. Again, maybe you think copyright is bullshit, but JSTOR does not have the luxury of philosophical purity. They had a job to do, namely to scan the worlds journals and provide access, and thats how they did it... they had to sweet talk the academic publishing monopolies (who would prefer JSTOR didnt exist) into allowing them to do what they do. They have provided access to millions of people around the world that was not possible without them. You can shit all over them all you want, but they dont control the laws. They are just trying to accomplish the same thing the libraries have been trying to accomplish all these years - disseminate knowledge for little or no cost. It is not their fault that the academic publishing houses (Elsevier, etc) abuse the system.
JSTOR essentially has to beg and lick-butt of the academic publishing monopolies in order to get away with what it does.
the world of academic journals is sort of like the world of music if Google and iTunes had never existed... stuck back in the 1990s where an ignorant and ossified monopoly makes all the decisions.
big difference is almost nobody is going to put academic journals on Pirate Bay because theyd rather watch porn and play video games.
you are 100% correct. indictments like this are full of horse shit and red herrings that are completely irrelevant to the case. it makes you wonder sometimes if prosecutors even know the law they are trying to uphold.
you would hope for more Joe Friday "just the facts" types doing these cases, but we seem to be perpetually stuck with DAs who analyze media strategy and decide to gussy up their indictments with irrelevant bullshit.
its a DMCA case and a CFAA case. totally different laws, and TOS are pretty shaky on legal ground. The folks who try to write about this stuff get it confused all the time, because they are ignorant of the law. But thats no excuse for the rest of us to be. Go read up on the law, theres stuff all over the internet.
2. JSTOR is not suing the kid, the government is. If JSTOR did it that would be a civil suit. This is a criminal suit.
3. JSTOR is not the MAFIAA, they do not push for these kinds of laws. They have to work within the copyright system as it exists so that publishers will grant them access to reproduce the academic journals the publishers own the rights to.
JSTOR would probably love to give universal access to everyone. they love revenue because it helps them conitnue their mission, expand their collection, hire more researchers and librarians, etc. they dont control the material though. they have to act super nice and kiss a lot of ass to get what they get already. Elsevier, and others, would love to crush JSTOR like a bug.
please read the JSTOR book, there is the whole history of how they started their operation and what and how it works.
essentially they were google books before google books. they were the first. and they are a Non-Profit entity.
the problems they ran into were massive - old paper collections of journals are riddled with missing issues, damaged pages, scribbled notes, misprints, etc. they actually had to create their own paper-library where they store 'canonical' versions of the old journals, which scholars pore over, page by page, before being allowed into the collection.
then they send the paper to the Dominican Republic or other low cost labor nations to get it scanned. Then they go and review the scans to make sure they are accurate.
they dont 'prevent worldwide dissemination', they actually provide it. they give a sliding scale of subscription prices to libraries around the world, including lower prices for developing countries (maybe even free, i cant remember). there are literally millions of people who could never access this stuff if not for JSTOR.
the problem is that they have to deal with copyright law responsibly or the publishers will crush them out of existence. they are not google, they cant just rely on the DMCA to get them out of hot water. Remember these guys started in the 90s, before Google was even really a company. They were around in the time of mp3.com --- when a single threat of a lawsuit could wipe out an entire community and valuable web resource for doing stuff that was perfectly legal. IIRC there wasn't even really a DMCA infrastructure working back then. They have to do everything 'by the book'. They cannot, for example, just pull a google and "scan first ask questions later". They would never have existed in the first place if they had that philosophy.
Now you can argue, why arent our taxpayer funded institutions providing free access to this for everyone? Good question. Why should you have to go into a library to use JSTOR? Well, it's not really up to JSTOR, it's up to the copyright holders and the US legal system. So instead of shitting all over JSTOR, please go shit all over Elsevier and the rest of the corrupted, conflicted academic publishing world.
JSTOR are relatively good guys. They are not the ones suing this kid, the Attorney General is.
all through college you listen to the 'engineer' and 'computer' kids and professors shit all over the 'liberal arts morons' and 'worthless degrees like english'.
then you get in the real world and try to, you know, fucking write something. turns out those 'morons' in 'liberal arts' were actually doing something that is every bit as difficult as creating an OS kernel or a graph algorithm.
things like 'fact checking' and 'editing' evolved over centuries, centuries of the craft, yes, the fucking craft of this thing called 'writing', which is as technical and difficult as any other field of human endeavor, from metallurgy to blacksmithing to CPU architecture.
the difference nowdays is that writing is fucking debased and devalued by society due to various factors that have barely, if ever, been studied. then we wake up one day and wonder why the fuck we are so ignorant. because we threw the writers and editors in the garbage can, because, after all, the work they did was 'worthless'.
associate hash maps were some exotic thing found in unversities. your main tools, turbo pascal and microsoft C++, had no such thing. you would have had to write the whole hashmap from scratch. considering they couldnt wrap their heads around writing linked list functions, i dont think a hash map would have worked out any better for them.
but people should remember the times. this was when a few MB of RAM was considered pretty damn good, dialup was normal, you went to something called a 'software store' to buy your games, which were stocked right next to books about how to write compression algorithms, and the latest version of PC Paintshop.
if you wanted to open a graphics context, you had to write the routine yourself, by calling interrupts into DOS and then use hand coded address of the graphics screen (A000:0000 iirc). There was no 'windowing system', there was no Standard Template Library, there was no boost, there wasn't really Python, it was just hack hack hack and get it out the door.
then the state should simply prop them up with subsidies, like it does for the rest of the military industrial complex, and then let the free market deal with whats left over
probably comes from the same factory as the iphone, or if not, then the factory down the street, and since nobody is putting pressure on Samsung to 'clean up its supply chain' (since its in Korea after all) then Samsung does not hire inspectors to go harass factory managers to clean up their act.
i see you havent read the site since, oh, around 1998, when people posted the same exact comment you just posted, and have been posting ever since.
now you could say things have changed since CmdrTaco left (funnily, none of the people in these threads seem to even know or care who he is) but even when he was here it was like this.
im sure the New Yorker has bags of letters just like this, people screaming about the 'rabble' the magazine is allowing into its pages.
we wouldn't have any of this stuff. he was the 'bridge' between the morons in the music industry and the 'rest of us' who just wanted to play stuff on computers.
before him, an entire website with hundreds of thousands of user generated songs got destroyed (mp3.com) because of a single lawsuit. there was no 'lets make a deal', there was no compromise solution, there was no protracted legal battle. the thing just evaporated into thin air and everyones data was destroyed. similar things were happening to small radio stations on the internet, streaming sites, etc.
after Jobs, a handful of halfway-forward thinkers in the music industry were able to make compromises, and deals, half baked and imperfect though they might be, at least they were making them.
maybe it all would have happened without him... but he was the one that got the two 'camps' to talk to each other and got the RIAA to stop mass destruction of digital music.
Slashdot Mirror
which, well, it can be.
extremely high chance its not RMS, but some guy whose day job is at a huge corporation, "selling out" to the man. the whole thing is hypocrisy stuffed inside the asshole of elitism. most 'free software' is built by work-a-day nobodies who prefer anonymity and the act of building itself to any kind of idealistic horse shit.
if you look at who actually funds 'free software', a lot of it is the same big companies that are getting megabucks off of the surveillance state.
a company like Apple has to take responsibility for how its creations are used, and deal with privacy issues... but with free software the makes just claim 'not my problem' and continue their work without asking too many questions about where the money comes from.
what are the odds that drones contain free software? extremely high.
i am not familiar with this, but i am not surprised to first learn about it on slashdot.
anyone with his bizarro attitudes towards child abuse, probably wants their searches to be entirely on TOR.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
1. professors dont have power. at most universities, professors have become part-time hired hands with no health insurance, as the 'adjuncts' rapidly grow to dwarf the size of actual professors. tenure is a figment of the past, publish or perish, and on and on and on.
2. the 'slavish reproductions' take a lot of librarians, scholars, and workers a very long time to collect and scan, because paper archives are incomplete, damaged, full of misprints, etc etc etc. read the JSTOR book and you will understand what they had to do to make a 'canonical' archive to scan - they actually had to create their own paper library archive and then scan that, because the typical backfiles at a university library are incomplete, incorrect, badly catalogued, damaged, etc etc etc.
3. Everything before 1923 (or whatever year it is now) is in the public domain. There is no way to copyright those pages. I have taken stuff out of pre-1923 books from google books and put it on wikipedia (with a link back to google books) . There is nothing they can do to you.
AFTER 1923 US copyright law kicks in. But since you are tlaking about a UK journal, you also need to look at UK copyright. Again, maybe you think copyright is bullshit, but JSTOR does not have the luxury of philosophical purity. They had a job to do, namely to scan the worlds journals and provide access, and thats how they did it... they had to sweet talk the academic publishing monopolies (who would prefer JSTOR didnt exist) into allowing them to do what they do. They have provided access to millions of people around the world that was not possible without them. You can shit all over them all you want, but they dont control the laws. They are just trying to accomplish the same thing the libraries have been trying to accomplish all these years - disseminate knowledge for little or no cost. It is not their fault that the academic publishing houses (Elsevier, etc) abuse the system.
look, just go read the JSTOR book, then come back and tell me you think the same thing?
JSTOR essentially has to beg and lick-butt of the academic publishing monopolies in order to get away with what it does.
the world of academic journals is sort of like the world of music if Google and iTunes had never existed... stuck back in the 1990s where an ignorant and ossified monopoly makes all the decisions.
big difference is almost nobody is going to put academic journals on Pirate Bay because theyd rather watch porn and play video games.
you are 100% correct. indictments like this are full of horse shit and red herrings that are completely irrelevant to the case. it makes you wonder sometimes if prosecutors even know the law they are trying to uphold.
you would hope for more Joe Friday "just the facts" types doing these cases, but we seem to be perpetually stuck with DAs who analyze media strategy and decide to gussy up their indictments with irrelevant bullshit.
its a DMCA case and a CFAA case. totally different laws, and TOS are pretty shaky on legal ground. The folks who try to write about this stuff get it confused all the time, because they are ignorant of the law. But thats no excuse for the rest of us to be. Go read up on the law, theres stuff all over the internet.
2. JSTOR is not suing the kid, the government is. If JSTOR did it that would be a civil suit. This is a criminal suit.
3. JSTOR is not the MAFIAA, they do not push for these kinds of laws. They have to work within the copyright system as it exists so that publishers will grant them access to reproduce the academic journals the publishers own the rights to.
JSTOR would probably love to give universal access to everyone. they love revenue because it helps them conitnue their mission, expand their collection, hire more researchers and librarians, etc. they dont control the material though. they have to act super nice and kiss a lot of ass to get what they get already. Elsevier, and others, would love to crush JSTOR like a bug.
please read the JSTOR book, there is the whole history of how they started their operation and what and how it works.
essentially they were google books before google books. they were the first. and they are a Non-Profit entity.
the problems they ran into were massive - old paper collections of journals are riddled with missing issues, damaged pages, scribbled notes, misprints, etc. they actually had to create their own paper-library where they store 'canonical' versions of the old journals, which scholars pore over, page by page, before being allowed into the collection.
then they send the paper to the Dominican Republic or other low cost labor nations to get it scanned. Then they go and review the scans to make sure they are accurate.
they dont 'prevent worldwide dissemination', they actually provide it. they give a sliding scale of subscription prices to libraries around the world, including lower prices for developing countries (maybe even free, i cant remember). there are literally millions of people who could never access this stuff if not for JSTOR.
the problem is that they have to deal with copyright law responsibly or the publishers will crush them out of existence. they are not google, they cant just rely on the DMCA to get them out of hot water. Remember these guys started in the 90s, before Google was even really a company. They were around in the time of mp3.com --- when a single threat of a lawsuit could wipe out an entire community and valuable web resource for doing stuff that was perfectly legal. IIRC there wasn't even really a DMCA infrastructure working back then. They have to do everything 'by the book'. They cannot, for example, just pull a google and "scan first ask questions later". They would never have existed in the first place if they had that philosophy.
Now you can argue, why arent our taxpayer funded institutions providing free access to this for everyone? Good question. Why should you have to go into a library to use JSTOR? Well, it's not really up to JSTOR, it's up to the copyright holders and the US legal system. So instead of shitting all over JSTOR, please go shit all over Elsevier and the rest of the corrupted, conflicted academic publishing world.
JSTOR are relatively good guys. They are not the ones suing this kid, the Attorney General is.
good luck to you guys.
all through college you listen to the 'engineer' and 'computer' kids and professors shit all over the 'liberal arts morons' and 'worthless degrees like english'.
then you get in the real world and try to, you know, fucking write something. turns out those 'morons' in 'liberal arts' were actually doing something that is every bit as difficult as creating an OS kernel or a graph algorithm.
things like 'fact checking' and 'editing' evolved over centuries, centuries of the craft, yes, the fucking craft of this thing called 'writing', which is as technical and difficult as any other field of human endeavor, from metallurgy to blacksmithing to CPU architecture.
the difference nowdays is that writing is fucking debased and devalued by society due to various factors that have barely, if ever, been studied. then we wake up one day and wonder why the fuck we are so ignorant. because we threw the writers and editors in the garbage can, because, after all, the work they did was 'worthless'.
associate hash maps were some exotic thing found in unversities. your main tools, turbo pascal and microsoft C++, had no such thing. you would have had to write the whole hashmap from scratch. considering they couldnt wrap their heads around writing linked list functions, i dont think a hash map would have worked out any better for them.
but people should remember the times. this was when a few MB of RAM was considered pretty damn good, dialup was normal, you went to something called a 'software store' to buy your games, which were stocked right next to books about how to write compression algorithms, and the latest version of PC Paintshop.
if you wanted to open a graphics context, you had to write the routine yourself, by calling interrupts into DOS and then use hand coded address of the graphics screen (A000:0000 iirc). There was no 'windowing system', there was no Standard Template Library, there was no boost, there wasn't really Python, it was just hack hack hack and get it out the door.
then the state should simply prop them up with subsidies, like it does for the rest of the military industrial complex, and then let the free market deal with whats left over
"Sure they're "twice the price", but for many people thats still spare change in reality."
for most people on this planet, $25 is a large amount of money
as the 'wikitravel company'. the company doesnt own the 'community'.
who go after wall street?
ask Leah McGrath Goodman.
or Moe Tkacik
or Michael Lewis
the whole basis of the GPL, BSD, CC, and all other 'open source' licenses is founded in copyright law, you bulbous, leaking colostomy bag.
probably comes from the same factory as the iphone, or if not, then the factory down the street, and since nobody is putting pressure on Samsung to 'clean up its supply chain' (since its in Korea after all) then Samsung does not hire inspectors to go harass factory managers to clean up their act.
i wonder what they would have to say?
other than, you know, the stuff people put on bumper stickers or on posters in their dorm rooms.
they told the NSA to gtfo and rtfc (read the fine Constitution) , you can read all about it.
i see you havent read the site since, oh, around 1998, when people posted the same exact comment you just posted, and have been posting ever since.
now you could say things have changed since CmdrTaco left (funnily, none of the people in these threads seem to even know or care who he is) but even when he was here it was like this.
im sure the New Yorker has bags of letters just like this, people screaming about the 'rabble' the magazine is allowing into its pages.
we wouldn't have any of this stuff. he was the 'bridge' between the morons in the music industry and the 'rest of us' who just wanted to play stuff on computers.
before him, an entire website with hundreds of thousands of user generated songs got destroyed (mp3.com) because of a single lawsuit. there was no 'lets make a deal', there was no compromise solution, there was no protracted legal battle. the thing just evaporated into thin air and everyones data was destroyed. similar things were happening to small radio stations on the internet, streaming sites, etc.
after Jobs, a handful of halfway-forward thinkers in the music industry were able to make compromises, and deals, half baked and imperfect though they might be, at least they were making them.
maybe it all would have happened without him... but he was the one that got the two 'camps' to talk to each other and got the RIAA to stop mass destruction of digital music.