Re: of this I am sure.
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
No i think it was called death to grammar nazi's who post anonymously and waste air for people like myself and the parent poster.
You clearly understood what was being said, thus you proved your correction was 100% needless and pointless.
Maybe you should try giving the world some useful ideas using this language thingy instead of giving nothing and obsessing over stupid details like spelling and grammar.
> What you're saying is I have no right to do this? Are you insane?
Actually no, its US law that says you have no right to do this.
The only thing at all that gives you ANY RIGHT to do ANYTHING with something in my posession is copyright. In order for you to get copyright, you need to pay for it. Payment is that work belongs to the public.
So, if you are selling a car to me, and it costs $1000. You think i have a right to distroy that $1000 cuz it was mine after our transaction is complete?
If i have a copy of your book, that book is my property. The *ONLY* thing that is preventing me from copying it and having 100% say-so on what *I* can do with it, is the fact you have a copyright on it.
If you come up and say you intentonally plan to not pay for the copyright, why should we still provide copyright to you? The answer is, we dont.
So if you intend to distroy the work, you are distroying your payment to us for copyright and shown your intent. If you arnt paying the public for copyright, then you dont get copyright, and lose even the ability to say i cant copy your book.
Have to ask (Hate to post to an old thread, but...) Why am i on your foe list? This is the only comment i can find where you and i have anything relating on slashdot.. so was just curious.
> On the conference call they are still saying that individual Linux users should > consult legal counsel.
I realize you are just repeating information, so I dont mean to direct this to you personally...
But linux users have nothing to worry about, nor have they done anything wrong to need legal counsel for.
Its similar (horible comparison, but as close as i can think of at the moment) to if a bank robber stole money from a bank, then went up in a plane and dumped the bags of cash out onto the streets.
You cant touch anyone on the ground that picks that money up. The only fault lies with the bank robber.
In this case, SCO screwed up and claimed the case is with IBM over contracts. Even if that is true, only IBM can be held responsible for what the world is doing with their screwup.
SCO admitted its not a patent issue, which they said it was at first, and now changed their minds, so nether answer will hold up in any court. A patent or copyright is about the only thing a linux end-user would need to worry about. And SCO just gave us a 'linux is perfectly fine patent/copyright wise' card to use in court if they so much as try.
As for space, well, light can only go so fast, and TCP is only so giving:)
I think IP will only be used in very short distances, if even off the planet. Its possible for the moon and orbiting things, but even for mars, thats how many light seconds away? I think we will be needing a new communication protocol that isnt IP to do interplanet or farther.
Imagine each planet getting a full range of ipv6 space. Use IP for inter planet, and something else to route between them.
Either way, ipv6 for a single planet cant possibly run out. To reach the area where there is only (only, heh) 5000 IPs per person, you would need to drain our planets oceans and have people standing sholder to sholder (no more laying down, wouldnt be enough room on the planet to do so) and even then i dont think there will be enough people to cover the whole surface of the planet to get those numbers.
I dont know how acurate this is, but someone once said if you took a layer of earth 1 inch thick that covered every piece of land on the planet that didnt have water on it (Including the big piece of ice at the top and bottom that not many people live on), there is an IP for every atom within that 1" layer.
To have enough devices to need all of the ipv6 addresses, this planet would be pretty damn packed and full leaving not much room left over for people.
> Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch.
Maybe cuz they helped build the thing, and asia didnt?
> No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment. However, there is a > greater good here. The technological haves or early adopters have grossly > disproportionate assignments.
So, you pay for a house, and spend time fixing that house up to be the way you want it, but if you are one person with a house and there are 10 homeless familys outside, using your logic, the fact you paid for and put your own work into that hosue for you is totally irrelevant, you should be forced to share?
Maybe if asia had something to contribute or help with back in the day, they would have been given the IPs needed to do their work improving the internet. Unfortunatly that isnt what happened. MIT however played a HUGE role in the development of the internet, and during that time im sure they did need those IPs.
Why doesnt asia convince IANA to allocate some of the unused IP space to them, instead of trying to bully space away from people that actually made the internet able to exist as it is today?
You need to stop looking at the words and look at the meaning behind them. After all, that is why words exist, to communicate an idea.
First, I think I did a fairly good job expressing my idea under the curcumstances, and even with the (mass amounts of) typos, instead of asking me to be more specific or clear on an idea, the only contribution you can possibly make is an insult?
Second, did you at all think that there may be a reason beyond being stupid?
Oh well, I dont know why im bothering, its not like you care one way or another.
> I don't know, but I'm posting this from work right now, and I'm pretty sure I > wouldn't want someone else who has nothing to do with my work determining when > I've made enough money from it and telling me I'm "whining" if somebody steals > it.
Well, too bad. I mean seriously, you have no options to do that.
The two options are
1) You copyright your work. In that case the public owns your work after 14 years (I do not observe the new laws, explained below)
2) You do not copyright your work, in which case you have no say so anyways.
Copyright was made to 'determine' how long you have to profit before the public gets your work. It was setup this way to better man kind by giving us encentive to create.
TO use copyright as it is now, there is no difference to the public if you make a copyrighted work and never let the public have it, and if you dont make it in the first place (The end result is the same, the public doesnt get anything)
Given the choices, I could care less if you stop making things. No difference to me than if you made it and dictate that i cant use it anyways.
Its people like you that dont care to see humans as a race advance, and just want to be greedy and horde everything for yourself.
If you dont want to give your work back to the public to better mankind, then stop bitching when the public doesnt want to help you.
Even though i understand the meaning of your post (And i 100% aggree with you and then some!) I just had to point out:
Remember: this is the USA. It doesnt have to hurt them, they dont want to be 'not hurt', they want control over their works.
Remember, if they truely believed in using copyright, anything over 14 years old the public owns. If all they cared about is not being hurt finantually, this would be fine. The laws have been changed so copyright doesnt do what it was intended (better all of mankind) but now its to provide never-ending control over works. Which of course Worsens all of mankind. I mean, why bother making art if the public isnt allowed to ever have it? With copyright as-is, there is no difference between someone making art and copyrighting it, and not making that art, as far as the public is concerned.
So, to answer your question, it hurts them because they said "Dont do that" and we arnt obeying, and laws they ruined already are the only defense aginst it:)
> Yes, If all goes right..... > > This is freaking me out.
Well if all goes right, the above goodness happens. If any one thing went wrong, the hole wont form so nothing happens:)
I dont know why you would be any more or less freaked out by this news. These black holes popup and disapear all the time almost everywhere that radiation from space can hit. Since they are subatomic and only exist for a billionth of a second or so, they dont react much at all with matter, which is why we want to make them. If you are looking at one spot, and create the hole vs waiting the one in (infinate -1 heh) odds of it happening naturally, you will actually have a billionth of a second to observe it. Right now even if we could detect one in a billionth of a second, it would be gone before we can 'look' at it. (That and we cant detect one in a billionth of a second, atleast not with anything a government has made public;) )
So if you want to be freaked out about this, its been happening since before you existed and will until pretty close to the end of the universe existing.
Also, even fully attomic sized blackholes (that do effect matter) are not anymore harmful than say a Star or planet as long as its not moving relitive to you.
I mean, our sun is a giant ball of mass that sucks things into it from its gravity, and its hot too, so I would imagine it would suck to be pulled into the sun. But that happens all the time for small rocks and stuff in space. And even thou those things mostly burn up, what matter does survive is 'pulled in' to the sun and raises its mass. As blackhole theory goes, we also think matter will heat up and burn before entering a blackhole as well, and if that is true, there is literally no difference than our sun as far as things being sucked into it. If our sun was replaced with a blackhole, none of this would change at all. We of course would die with no radation from the sun (or the planets electrical bill would literally skyrocket) but nothing else would change.
Also note that we sorta need the gravity of the sun to stay here in orbit and live (Speaking as a resedent on the planet earth)
In addition, just like the planets in our solar system orbit the gravity of our star, the solar systems in our galaxy currently orbit a blackhole and we wouldnt be here (We = the milky way solarsystem) if that blackhole Wasnt there.
gravity != automagically bad
Instead of being freaked by a natual occurance, as well as us causing that natural thing to happen unnaturally, I would actually suggest learning about the subject (or atleast in laymans terms, its really very fasinating without all the math);)
Unfortunatly the media of the 60's turned the word 'black hole' into all sorts of things it isnt, and the people of course believe what is on TV:)
I admit its hard to find good reading material on the subject that isnt atleast sprinkled with complex math, but I would suggest some of the books by Stephen Hawking (His writting style appealed to me personally) and the like. I would imagine adding that to your shopping cart at amazon would bring up suggestions too which would be fairly valid.
> I think the number of Kazaa download just tells us that there are more criminals > than we think.
Why is that? Because alot of people are doing it?
You do realize right that the only reason pirating is(was?) concidered wrong is because the majority decided it was wrong.
Now the majority seems to be deciding its not all that wrong after all, so by the exact same way it became wrong it is now becoming OK.
Since at one point it became 'law' to match the wrong, in the same exact way, soon (relitivly soon, but garenteed before 100 years) the law will be changed to match what the majority feels is right.
If the minority that is artists want any form of protection in the future, they better start compromising before the majority just speaks for them.
> And my point, as you'll see from the conversations below, is that you can't call > either 'owning'.
Actually thats not quite acurate either.
You (usually) do own a copy of the music (read as data for geeks, no matter what media its on) You have it, thus you own it.
Now, the fun comes in with copyright.
You do own the music, but copyright limits what you can legally do with it, at the copyright owners whim.
You do own the data. You do NOT own the copyright to that data.
Before disney paid our government to fuck over the public, copyright would expire after 7 years (or 14 with an extention), at which point there is no copyright on the data, and then you literally do own that data AND the right to do anything you want with it.
You need to keep in mind, copyright was an offer FROM THE PUBLIC to artists. It was a deal. The public said "hey, if you make things, we will make you a deal. we will allow you a 7 year period of control, but in return we want that thing to be owned by the public after that time."
We (the public) cant really help the fact the government is speaking for us incorrectly and changing that deal to "Hey, we are still gunna give you that deal, but you dont have to pay for that anymore. You get to keep your stuff forever and its all free!"
Personally if i aggree to a deal, and someone else comes up and claims the deal is different and i didnt OK it, i dont view the changes as valid. I personally view any work older than 7 years to be mine (well, everyones, as its public domain, but im a part of of the pubic so 'mine' works)
The artists and government is trying to say the deal the public made is different now. I say fuck it, i will not honour any deal where the other side can change things however they want and i dont need to aggree, yet im still forced into keeping the deal with they are not forced to.
But the point of this post, the data itself, and the copyrights to that data, are two seperate things. The data you do own if its in your posession just as much as a piece of paper or a bag of popcorn or a light bulb you paid for is yours. Only the copyright is not owned by you.
Yes, copyright is only there for the creator of a work to say what you can and can not do with your own property. It may seem like a shitty deal, but if you knew what the origonal deal was, it wasnt at all bad. Its only bad now that the other side changed it without our permission and they arnt being forced into keeping the old deal in the same way we are forced into accepting the new one.
And please, no comments about how the government represents us and thus can give permisson for us. I can garentee if this issue was up for vote to the general public, copyright would NEVER have been changed to what it is now. I never recal this being an issue to vote on, so as far as im concered, the govt that speaks for me is doing a piss poor job of figuring out what we want. (If this issue was ever in the voting booths and i just happened to miss it, feel free to provide proof and I'll take back all my words above.)
Just setup a paypal account, create a donate button (it feeds you HTML) then keep that in a donate.html on your desktop/homedir.
Open it in a browser, and 'donate' the right price and let the buyer enter CC info. Or one could give this html out if the security of the sellers computer is in question, or you want to use this method for payment over the net vs in person, assuming you trusted the dealer to be there after you paid and went over for the pickup.
PayPal charges your CC with a name of "PAYPAL*_____" where the underscore is 16 chars however you want it to read (Mine reads my real name, for lack of a better word)
Instant credit card accepting drugdealer (or anything else illegal where cash is desired to stay anon)
I wouldnt view using paypal for that any more of a risk than cash, since you still need to end up meeting the person to pick up physical goods and if it was a raid you would get busted at that point anyway. It only makes it so you cant escape the raid and avoid being caught (Since they have an address that was verified, cant be too fake to verify it, but doesnt have to be yours really.)
Havent put all that much thought into it, but it seems paypals donation feature (or even set price buttons) would work great for that.
Re:Screw multimedia; how about software?
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
> Hmmm, sounds exactly like Windows Update.
Really?
The only windows update I know of is http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ which is what 2k and XP use with their start menu shortcuts.
Where is this other windows update you know of that downloads patches from everyone using p2p and verifys the parts after the download so you know you have an untampered with file and the files arnt stored on MS servers?
Please give us this URL you know of, it sounds really neat!
> Wow! $25,000 [cdw.com] for 16 GB of RAM disk seems a tad high or > widespread adoption.
Wow! Whats funny is someone just like you said the same thing about harddrives. I mean, $25,000,000 for a 10 gig drive?!? Thats a tad high to EVER take off!
Except for the fact we can now get a drive 25 times as large for 100,000 times less the price (250gb for $250) and not only that but 10gig drives and much larger ARE common place, so i'd have to say you have very high chances of being wrong:)
The same can be said for HDs, ram (system ram), CPU speed, modem speed, etc etc etc.
As appliactions are found, the hardware becomes more in demand, so the production costs begin to lower with bulk, and prices fall.
If using RAM for your databases is truly better to the point its noticable, people WILL start using that method, and it WILL start to get popular.
> Why, just the other day I was thinking about how Home Depot leaves those crates > of stuff out front and how I should just drive by after midnight and take what I > wanted. Why pay, right?
Actually that is a very good question. I do realize the intent of your post, so this is sorta 'side tracking', but let me ask you this:
If you could 'take' a crate worth of stuff from Home Depot, yet both a) home depot was not at all deprived of the crate, and b) they had no idea you now have the same stuff from that crate that they still have.. would you take it?
Basically put, if 'replicators' from startrek (sorry to those that dont watch the show) existed here and now and were real, would you concider being able to turn the air in the unit now into any type of atoms in any arragement at all (to create matter of the type you need) to be theft?
Remember, to data, there is no such thing as a move, only a copy then delete. Your example is like one person saying 'murder is right/wrong' and you said 'but shoes feel great on my feet!' (Speficially, your example had nothing to do with the topic at hand) so I wanted to rearange your example to make it fit. The only way to do that is to COPY the items being 'stolen' so that the person that had them first did not lose anything or was not inconvienced (in terms of the items taken) by you doing it. To copy real life things (IE to steal something, that something has to exist in reality) you literally need to copy them, just like people do with data that is copied (yet labeled stolen)
And the only way to do that is to have startrek like replicators.
So then I turn the question around... If i spent $3000 on a new computer, and you dont wanna pay $500 for the 3ghz CPU i just bought, so i 'copy' my CPU so not only do I have one but you do too. Using your morals/ethics/laws/logic I just let you 'steal' that CPU from me.
Now, lets replace computer/cpu with food. We can rearange the atoms in the air to make them into food. The person that grew the food first (that had to be there to be copied this way) has already been paid LONG ago for that food. If you have an ear of corn, and you go to sell it, you expect to get paid in exchange for the corn, and after that you dont care what happens to it. Well, if the buyer can make copys and give them away, that doesnt at all deprive you of income (Being the corn grower) because you didnt grow the corn being given away for free, just the one they were copied from.
Ironically intelectual property was suppost to work the same way when the laws on it were made, before companys paid off congress to change them. An artist that say makes music for example. That artist is NOT suppost to get paid for each COPY made. That artist gets paid for their time, knowledge, and experence, and get paid ONCE for that one time job.
And this is how it mostly works now. The artist creates a song, and sells it to the RIAA once. The RIAA is who is suppost to be allowed to make these copys and sell them to us. The artist has already been paid for their work and is 100% out of the loop at this point.
We (the people) now have the abilitys via technology to do everything the RIAA does, except we can do it at home on a simple PC. Why are we not allowed to? Copyright isnt to garentee income, its to put back the physical security aspect that cant exist without a physical object.
If I could copy corn, as per the previous example, under current laws this would be legal. Yet following IP laws it would not be. Yet clearly in both cases (farmer growing corn or artist making song) both only get paid for the work they do.
Farmer grows 100 ears of corn, he can sell 100 ears of corn. Artist makes one song, they can sell ONE SONG, not one million copys of the same song!
Yes im talking how things should be, not how they are in the US. But it should be clear how IP laws do not mesh with the same logic for normal property. If its property, it should share atleast one characteristic with all other types of property (No, the law does not count as a shared property, the law is artificial and not real)
> until someone asked: > Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free > on another?
For the same reason a company would use one service to have a person killed (legal system) vs another (doing it themselfs for free) One is alot more annoying, in this case killing someone else yourself for free. You have to go through all the work of not getting caught and covering it up etc etc. If you got your ends through means that people dont complain about, its generally easier even with the added cost of money, than getting the same ends through means that people DO complain about.
It just really depends which is worth more to you, the money or the convience. Doesnt matter what that applys to, its just always true. Music is no different here.
To some people, the money is worth more than anything else you could offer them, and those people will take for free if they can get away with it even despite there being some (or alot of, depending) annoyance with it. These people you cant do anything about.
> However, the RIAA member companies have been claiming that these students made a > tool without substantial non-infringing use.
You missed my point i think. The quoted line above is incorrect. Ok I will grant you that the interview with CNN basically implys that is correct, but CNN also out right said (a tad beyond imply) that the RIAA was the government too...
In the interview however you will see the students comment that he is going to put the search engine back up when he gets back. If that was deemed illegal, he couldnt do that (and should not be saying things such as that, which would only serve to hurt him later.)
The reason he got sued was not due to the search engine, but due to the fact he had a large MP3 collection mostly of copyrighted works owned* by the RIAA. ( * I use the term 'owned' loosly.. i dont aggree with it, but you know what i mean.) In the past 2 or 3 articles following this case, all of them have said this.
This interview was really horible. Its basically a moron at CNN vs the student who commited a crime of copyright voilation and the CNN interviewer may as well have focused the whole talk on the students sock preference or something equally as non related as his search engine.
But he had these mp3's, he was caught with them, and current law (Current as in its been on the books since Disney changed it 20ish years ago) indeed makes that illegal. THAT is why he settled, because to that charge, he could only plead no contest or guilty, both of which admitting guilt and losing the trial.
The reason he can put his search engine back up is because he most likely will be doing that on a computer that does not have copyrighted MP3s on it as well.
> Well, child porn and copies of MP3s are both illegal under federal law.
While the first is true, the second is not.
MP3s are not illegal anywhere. If they were, that would automatically make ALL SOUND STORING FORMATS illegal. All of your tapes and CDs and old 8 tracks would be just as illegal. Same as records or all computers with a sound card or your answering machine and voicemail box.
Concidering the RIAA is still in business, clearly distributing music is not a federal crime.
> You'll happily throw money at a kid you've never met, to support depriving > artists of the money they rightfully deserve
Actually the artists already got paid for their work by the distribution channel (RIAA in this case). The student is depriving money from the RIAA, not the artists.
Minor detail, but one that needs pointed out (Just like copyright voilation isnt stealing, and saying someone 'deserves' money and so should magically have the right to steal it from me)
Concidering the artists (In all fairness, the RIAA which owns the copyright to the artists work.. not the artists themselfs generally speaking) are the thieves in the law of copyright.
They stole from us (The public) first, longer, and much worse LONG before p2p existed to share files of any sort.
You do realize the payment to copyright your work of art, is that you will give that work of art back to the public domain at the end of 17 years, right? That is what an artist has to pay to get copyright on their work. For this payment, in exchange they get a 17 year monopoloy to make money or whatever with.
When i start seeing my payment of copyrighted art older than 17 years being public domain, THEN i will hold up my end of the deal of copyright and give them those 17 years to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
No i think it was called death to grammar nazi's who post anonymously and waste air for people like myself and the parent poster.
You clearly understood what was being said, thus you proved your correction was 100% needless and pointless.
Maybe you should try giving the world some useful ideas using this language thingy instead of giving nothing and obsessing over stupid details like spelling and grammar.
> Computers are a tool for burglary, let's ban those.
:(
Sad part is, if you look at whats been happening over the past few years, computers _are_ being banned, one function at a time
> What you're saying is I have no right to do this? Are you insane?
Actually no, its US law that says you have no right to do this.
The only thing at all that gives you ANY RIGHT to do ANYTHING with something in my posession is copyright.
In order for you to get copyright, you need to pay for it. Payment is that work belongs to the public.
So, if you are selling a car to me, and it costs $1000.
You think i have a right to distroy that $1000 cuz it was mine after our transaction is complete?
If i have a copy of your book, that book is my property. The *ONLY* thing that is preventing me from copying it and having 100% say-so on what *I* can do with it, is the fact you have a copyright on it.
If you come up and say you intentonally plan to not pay for the copyright, why should we still provide copyright to you? The answer is, we dont.
So if you intend to distroy the work, you are distroying your payment to us for copyright and shown your intent.
If you arnt paying the public for copyright, then you dont get copyright, and lose even the ability to say i cant copy your book.
Have to ask (Hate to post to an old thread, but...)
Why am i on your foe list?
This is the only comment i can find where you and i have anything relating on slashdot.. so was just curious.
> On the conference call they are still saying that individual Linux users should
> consult legal counsel.
I realize you are just repeating information, so I dont mean to direct this to you personally...
But linux users have nothing to worry about, nor have they done anything wrong to need legal counsel for.
Its similar (horible comparison, but as close as i can think of at the moment) to if a bank robber stole money from a bank, then went up in a plane and dumped the bags of cash out onto the streets.
You cant touch anyone on the ground that picks that money up.
The only fault lies with the bank robber.
In this case, SCO screwed up and claimed the case is with IBM over contracts. Even if that is true, only IBM can be held responsible for what the world is doing with their screwup.
SCO admitted its not a patent issue, which they said it was at first, and now changed their minds, so nether answer will hold up in any court.
A patent or copyright is about the only thing a linux end-user would need to worry about.
And SCO just gave us a 'linux is perfectly fine patent/copyright wise' card to use in court if they so much as try.
As for space, well, light can only go so fast, and TCP is only so giving :)
I think IP will only be used in very short distances, if even off the planet.
Its possible for the moon and orbiting things, but even for mars, thats how many light seconds away? I think we will be needing a new communication protocol that isnt IP to do interplanet or farther.
Imagine each planet getting a full range of ipv6 space. Use IP for inter planet, and something else to route between them.
Either way, ipv6 for a single planet cant possibly run out.
To reach the area where there is only (only, heh) 5000 IPs per person, you would need to drain our planets oceans and have people standing sholder to sholder (no more laying down, wouldnt be enough room on the planet to do so) and even then i dont think there will be enough people to cover the whole surface of the planet to get those numbers.
I dont know how acurate this is, but someone once said if you took a layer of earth 1 inch thick that covered every piece of land on the planet that didnt have water on it (Including the big piece of ice at the top and bottom that not many people live on), there is an IP for every atom within that 1" layer.
To have enough devices to need all of the ipv6 addresses, this planet would be pretty damn packed and full leaving not much room left over for people.
> Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch.
Maybe cuz they helped build the thing, and asia didnt?
> No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment. However, there is a
> greater good here. The technological haves or early adopters have grossly
> disproportionate assignments.
So, you pay for a house, and spend time fixing that house up to be the way you want it, but if you are one person with a house and there are 10 homeless familys outside, using your logic, the fact you paid for and put your own work into that hosue for you is totally irrelevant, you should be forced to share?
Maybe if asia had something to contribute or help with back in the day, they would have been given the IPs needed to do their work improving the internet.
Unfortunatly that isnt what happened.
MIT however played a HUGE role in the development of the internet, and during that time im sure they did need those IPs.
Why doesnt asia convince IANA to allocate some of the unused IP space to them, instead of trying to bully space away from people that actually made the internet able to exist as it is today?
What a pointless fucking reply.
You need to stop looking at the words and look at the meaning behind them. After all, that is why words exist, to communicate an idea.
First, I think I did a fairly good job expressing my idea under the curcumstances, and even with the (mass amounts of) typos, instead of asking me to be more specific or clear on an idea, the only contribution you can possibly make is an insult?
Second, did you at all think that there may be a reason beyond being stupid?
Oh well, I dont know why im bothering, its not like you care one way or another.
> I don't know, but I'm posting this from work right now, and I'm pretty sure I
> wouldn't want someone else who has nothing to do with my work determining when
> I've made enough money from it and telling me I'm "whining" if somebody steals
> it.
Well, too bad. I mean seriously, you have no options to do that.
The two options are
1) You copyright your work. In that case the public owns your work after 14 years (I do not observe the new laws, explained below)
2) You do not copyright your work, in which case you have no say so anyways.
Copyright was made to 'determine' how long you have to profit before the public gets your work.
It was setup this way to better man kind by giving us encentive to create.
TO use copyright as it is now, there is no difference to the public if you make a copyrighted work and never let the public have it, and if you dont make it in the first place (The end result is the same, the public doesnt get anything)
Given the choices, I could care less if you stop making things. No difference to me than if you made it and dictate that i cant use it anyways.
Its people like you that dont care to see humans as a race advance, and just want to be greedy and horde everything for yourself.
If you dont want to give your work back to the public to better mankind, then stop bitching when the public doesnt want to help you.
> How does this hurt them?
:)
Even though i understand the meaning of your post (And i 100% aggree with you and then some!) I just had to point out:
Remember: this is the USA.
It doesnt have to hurt them, they dont want to be 'not hurt', they want control over their works.
Remember, if they truely believed in using copyright, anything over 14 years old the public owns. If all they cared about is not being hurt finantually, this would be fine. The laws have been changed so copyright doesnt do what it was intended (better all of mankind) but now its to provide never-ending control over works.
Which of course Worsens all of mankind.
I mean, why bother making art if the public isnt allowed to ever have it?
With copyright as-is, there is no difference between someone making art and copyrighting it, and not making that art, as far as the public is concerned.
So, to answer your question, it hurts them because they said "Dont do that" and we arnt obeying, and laws they ruined already are the only defense aginst it
> What if hawking was wrong, and hawking radiation doesn't kill them off?
> Then how are we going to stop them from eating us all?
If hawking was wrong, how are we going to create the backhole in the first place?
> Yes, If all goes right.....
:)
;) )
;)
:)
>
> This is freaking me out.
Well if all goes right, the above goodness happens.
If any one thing went wrong, the hole wont form so nothing happens
I dont know why you would be any more or less freaked out by this news.
These black holes popup and disapear all the time almost everywhere that radiation from space can hit. Since they are subatomic and only exist for a billionth of a second or so, they dont react much at all with matter, which is why we want to make them. If you are looking at one spot, and create the hole vs waiting the one in (infinate -1 heh) odds of it happening naturally, you will actually have a billionth of a second to observe it.
Right now even if we could detect one in a billionth of a second, it would be gone before we can 'look' at it. (That and we cant detect one in a billionth of a second, atleast not with anything a government has made public
So if you want to be freaked out about this, its been happening since before you existed and will until pretty close to the end of the universe existing.
Also, even fully attomic sized blackholes (that do effect matter) are not anymore harmful than say a Star or planet as long as its not moving relitive to you.
I mean, our sun is a giant ball of mass that sucks things into it from its gravity, and its hot too, so I would imagine it would suck to be pulled into the sun. But that happens all the time for small rocks and stuff in space. And even thou those things mostly burn up, what matter does survive is 'pulled in' to the sun and raises its mass. As blackhole theory goes, we also think matter will heat up and burn before entering a blackhole as well, and if that is true, there is literally no difference than our sun as far as things being sucked into it.
If our sun was replaced with a blackhole, none of this would change at all.
We of course would die with no radation from the sun (or the planets electrical bill would literally skyrocket) but nothing else would change.
Also note that we sorta need the gravity of the sun to stay here in orbit and live (Speaking as a resedent on the planet earth)
In addition, just like the planets in our solar system orbit the gravity of our star, the solar systems in our galaxy currently orbit a blackhole and we wouldnt be here (We = the milky way solarsystem) if that blackhole Wasnt there.
gravity != automagically bad
Instead of being freaked by a natual occurance, as well as us causing that natural thing to happen unnaturally, I would actually suggest learning about the subject (or atleast in laymans terms, its really very fasinating without all the math)
Unfortunatly the media of the 60's turned the word 'black hole' into all sorts of things it isnt, and the people of course believe what is on TV
I admit its hard to find good reading material on the subject that isnt atleast sprinkled with complex math, but I would suggest some of the books by Stephen Hawking (His writting style appealed to me personally) and the like.
I would imagine adding that to your shopping cart at amazon would bring up suggestions too which would be fairly valid.
> I think the number of Kazaa download just tells us that there are more criminals
> than we think.
Why is that? Because alot of people are doing it?
You do realize right that the only reason pirating is(was?) concidered wrong is because the majority decided it was wrong.
Now the majority seems to be deciding its not all that wrong after all, so by the exact same way it became wrong it is now becoming OK.
Since at one point it became 'law' to match the wrong, in the same exact way, soon (relitivly soon, but garenteed before 100 years) the law will be changed to match what the majority feels is right.
If the minority that is artists want any form of protection in the future, they better start compromising before the majority just speaks for them.
> And my point, as you'll see from the conversations below, is that you can't call
> either 'owning'.
Actually thats not quite acurate either.
You (usually) do own a copy of the music (read as data for geeks, no matter what media its on)
You have it, thus you own it.
Now, the fun comes in with copyright.
You do own the music, but copyright limits what you can legally do with it, at the copyright owners whim.
You do own the data. You do NOT own the copyright to that data.
Before disney paid our government to fuck over the public, copyright would expire after 7 years (or 14 with an extention), at which point there is no copyright on the data, and then you literally do own that data AND the right to do anything you want with it.
You need to keep in mind, copyright was an offer FROM THE PUBLIC to artists.
It was a deal. The public said "hey, if you make things, we will make you a deal. we will allow you a 7 year period of control, but in return we want that thing to be owned by the public after that time."
We (the public) cant really help the fact the government is speaking for us incorrectly and changing that deal to "Hey, we are still gunna give you that deal, but you dont have to pay for that anymore. You get to keep your stuff forever and its all free!"
Personally if i aggree to a deal, and someone else comes up and claims the deal is different and i didnt OK it, i dont view the changes as valid.
I personally view any work older than 7 years to be mine (well, everyones, as its public domain, but im a part of of the pubic so 'mine' works)
The artists and government is trying to say the deal the public made is different now. I say fuck it, i will not honour any deal where the other side can change things however they want and i dont need to aggree, yet im still forced into keeping the deal with they are not forced to.
But the point of this post, the data itself, and the copyrights to that data, are two seperate things. The data you do own if its in your posession just as much as a piece of paper or a bag of popcorn or a light bulb you paid for is yours.
Only the copyright is not owned by you.
Yes, copyright is only there for the creator of a work to say what you can and can not do with your own property.
It may seem like a shitty deal, but if you knew what the origonal deal was, it wasnt at all bad. Its only bad now that the other side changed it without our permission and they arnt being forced into keeping the old deal in the same way we are forced into accepting the new one.
And please, no comments about how the government represents us and thus can give permisson for us. I can garentee if this issue was up for vote to the general public, copyright would NEVER have been changed to what it is now.
I never recal this being an issue to vote on, so as far as im concered, the govt that speaks for me is doing a piss poor job of figuring out what we want.
(If this issue was ever in the voting booths and i just happened to miss it, feel free to provide proof and I'll take back all my words above.)
Just setup a paypal account, create a donate button (it feeds you HTML) then keep that in a donate.html on your desktop/homedir.
Open it in a browser, and 'donate' the right price and let the buyer enter CC info.
Or one could give this html out if the security of the sellers computer is in question, or you want to use this method for payment over the net vs in person, assuming you trusted the dealer to be there after you paid and went over for the pickup.
PayPal charges your CC with a name of "PAYPAL*_____" where the underscore is 16 chars however you want it to read (Mine reads my real name, for lack of a better word)
Instant credit card accepting drugdealer (or anything else illegal where cash is desired to stay anon)
I wouldnt view using paypal for that any more of a risk than cash, since you still need to end up meeting the person to pick up physical goods and if it was a raid you would get busted at that point anyway. It only makes it so you cant escape the raid and avoid being caught (Since they have an address that was verified, cant be too fake to verify it, but doesnt have to be yours really.)
Havent put all that much thought into it, but it seems paypals donation feature (or even set price buttons) would work great for that.
> Hmmm, sounds exactly like Windows Update.
Really?
The only windows update I know of is http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ which is what 2k and XP use with their start menu shortcuts.
Where is this other windows update you know of that downloads patches from everyone using p2p and verifys the parts after the download so you know you have an untampered with file and the files arnt stored on MS servers?
Please give us this URL you know of, it sounds really neat!
Would it be possible to add a firewire or usb2 controller to your computer?
Technically USB1 would even work but it would be slow.
Get a $80 bridge-board for an IDE harddrive and a 20+ foot cable.
www.fwdepot.com has bridgeboards, cables, enclosures (if needed) for both firewire and usb.
> The point is, kids don't need to get hopped up on coffee at 7am.
:P
> That's for the big kids.
I dont think the big kids _need_ to get hopped up on coffee either
> Wow! $25,000 [cdw.com] for 16 GB of RAM disk seems a tad high or
:)
> widespread adoption.
Wow! Whats funny is someone just like you said the same thing about harddrives.
I mean, $25,000,000 for a 10 gig drive?!? Thats a tad high to EVER take off!
Except for the fact we can now get a drive 25 times as large for 100,000 times less the price (250gb for $250) and not only that but 10gig drives and much larger ARE common place, so i'd have to say you have very high chances of being wrong
The same can be said for HDs, ram (system ram), CPU speed, modem speed, etc etc etc.
As appliactions are found, the hardware becomes more in demand, so the production costs begin to lower with bulk, and prices fall.
If using RAM for your databases is truly better to the point its noticable, people WILL start using that method, and it WILL start to get popular.
> Why, just the other day I was thinking about how Home Depot leaves those crates
> of stuff out front and how I should just drive by after midnight and take what I
> wanted. Why pay, right?
Actually that is a very good question.
I do realize the intent of your post, so this is sorta 'side tracking', but let me ask you this:
If you could 'take' a crate worth of stuff from Home Depot, yet both a) home depot was not at all deprived of the crate, and b) they had no idea you now have the same stuff from that crate that they still have.. would you take it?
Basically put, if 'replicators' from startrek (sorry to those that dont watch the show) existed here and now and were real, would you concider being able to turn the air in the unit now into any type of atoms in any arragement at all (to create matter of the type you need) to be theft?
Remember, to data, there is no such thing as a move, only a copy then delete.
Your example is like one person saying 'murder is right/wrong' and you said 'but shoes feel great on my feet!' (Speficially, your example had nothing to do with the topic at hand) so I wanted to rearange your example to make it fit.
The only way to do that is to COPY the items being 'stolen' so that the person that had them first did not lose anything or was not inconvienced (in terms of the items taken) by you doing it.
To copy real life things (IE to steal something, that something has to exist in reality) you literally need to copy them, just like people do with data that is copied (yet labeled stolen)
And the only way to do that is to have startrek like replicators.
So then I turn the question around...
If i spent $3000 on a new computer, and you dont wanna pay $500 for the 3ghz CPU i just bought, so i 'copy' my CPU so not only do I have one but you do too.
Using your morals/ethics/laws/logic I just let you 'steal' that CPU from me.
Now, lets replace computer/cpu with food.
We can rearange the atoms in the air to make them into food.
The person that grew the food first (that had to be there to be copied this way) has already been paid LONG ago for that food. If you have an ear of corn, and you go to sell it, you expect to get paid in exchange for the corn, and after that you dont care what happens to it.
Well, if the buyer can make copys and give them away, that doesnt at all deprive you of income (Being the corn grower) because you didnt grow the corn being given away for free, just the one they were copied from.
Ironically intelectual property was suppost to work the same way when the laws on it were made, before companys paid off congress to change them.
An artist that say makes music for example.
That artist is NOT suppost to get paid for each COPY made.
That artist gets paid for their time, knowledge, and experence, and get paid ONCE for that one time job.
And this is how it mostly works now. The artist creates a song, and sells it to the RIAA once.
The RIAA is who is suppost to be allowed to make these copys and sell them to us.
The artist has already been paid for their work and is 100% out of the loop at this point.
We (the people) now have the abilitys via technology to do everything the RIAA does, except we can do it at home on a simple PC.
Why are we not allowed to?
Copyright isnt to garentee income, its to put back the physical security aspect that cant exist without a physical object.
If I could copy corn, as per the previous example, under current laws this would be legal. Yet following IP laws it would not be. Yet clearly in both cases (farmer growing corn or artist making song) both only get paid for the work they do.
Farmer grows 100 ears of corn, he can sell 100 ears of corn.
Artist makes one song, they can sell ONE SONG, not one million copys of the same song!
Yes im talking how things should be, not how they are in the US. But it should be clear how IP laws do not mesh with the same logic for normal property.
If its property, it should share atleast one characteristic with all other types of property (No, the law does not count as a shared property, the law is artificial and not real)
Just some food for thought.
> until someone asked:
> Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free
> on another?
For the same reason a company would use one service to have a person killed (legal system) vs another (doing it themselfs for free)
One is alot more annoying, in this case killing someone else yourself for free. You have to go through all the work of not getting caught and covering it up etc etc.
If you got your ends through means that people dont complain about, its generally easier even with the added cost of money, than getting the same ends through means that people DO complain about.
It just really depends which is worth more to you, the money or the convience.
Doesnt matter what that applys to, its just always true. Music is no different here.
To some people, the money is worth more than anything else you could offer them, and those people will take for free if they can get away with it even despite there being some (or alot of, depending) annoyance with it. These people you cant do anything about.
> However, the RIAA member companies have been claiming that these students made a
> tool without substantial non-infringing use.
You missed my point i think. The quoted line above is incorrect.
Ok I will grant you that the interview with CNN basically implys that is correct, but CNN also out right said (a tad beyond imply) that the RIAA was the government too...
In the interview however you will see the students comment that he is going to put the search engine back up when he gets back. If that was deemed illegal, he couldnt do that (and should not be saying things such as that, which would only serve to hurt him later.)
The reason he got sued was not due to the search engine, but due to the fact he had a large MP3 collection mostly of copyrighted works owned* by the RIAA.
( * I use the term 'owned' loosly.. i dont aggree with it, but you know what i mean.)
In the past 2 or 3 articles following this case, all of them have said this.
This interview was really horible. Its basically a moron at CNN vs the student who commited a crime of copyright voilation and the CNN interviewer may as well have focused the whole talk on the students sock preference or something equally as non related as his search engine.
But he had these mp3's, he was caught with them, and current law (Current as in its been on the books since Disney changed it 20ish years ago) indeed makes that illegal. THAT is why he settled, because to that charge, he could only plead no contest or guilty, both of which admitting guilt and losing the trial.
The reason he can put his search engine back up is because he most likely will be doing that on a computer that does not have copyrighted MP3s on it as well.
> Well, child porn and copies of MP3s are both illegal under federal law.
While the first is true, the second is not.
MP3s are not illegal anywhere.
If they were, that would automatically make ALL SOUND STORING FORMATS illegal.
All of your tapes and CDs and old 8 tracks would be just as illegal.
Same as records or all computers with a sound card or your answering machine and voicemail box.
Concidering the RIAA is still in business, clearly distributing music is not a federal crime.
> Now, if it's true that all these guys did was provide a search facility, why
> doesn't that ruling apply?
Uhh.. cuz that isnt true? And all the articles (Including this one) say it wasnt because of the search engine?
I didnt read the rest of your post as it seems to be based on the lie that this had something to do with their search engine software...
> You'll happily throw money at a kid you've never met, to support depriving
> artists of the money they rightfully deserve
Actually the artists already got paid for their work by the distribution channel (RIAA in this case). The student is depriving money from the RIAA, not the artists.
Minor detail, but one that needs pointed out (Just like copyright voilation isnt stealing, and saying someone 'deserves' money and so should magically have the right to steal it from me)
Concidering the artists (In all fairness, the RIAA which owns the copyright to the artists work.. not the artists themselfs generally speaking) are the thieves in the law of copyright.
They stole from us (The public) first, longer, and much worse LONG before p2p existed to share files of any sort.
You do realize the payment to copyright your work of art, is that you will give that work of art back to the public domain at the end of 17 years, right?
That is what an artist has to pay to get copyright on their work.
For this payment, in exchange they get a 17 year monopoloy to make money or whatever with.
When i start seeing my payment of copyrighted art older than 17 years being public domain, THEN i will hold up my end of the deal of copyright and give them those 17 years to start with.