Nobody is saying click-through licenses would be required.
Not in the strict sense, but the post clearly states that click-through licensing is being advocated because it is easier to enforce legally; I suppose the reasoning is that click-through licenses ensure that the end user has had a chance to acknowledge and agree to the license. Which seems totally bogus to me since click throughs can be so easily circumvented. To my mind either you can bind someone by a license based on them using a particular product or you can't; making them jump through a hoop doesn't seem to change that, especially when they are expected to jump through the hoop voluntarily on their own, in the privacy of their own workspace. And it is common knowledge that most end users won't read the entire license before clicking "Agree" anyway, so if the legal system offers this kind of license more protection they are basically acknowledging that the consent of one party of the license agreement is an empty formality.
Excellent post. The notion of copyright as a natural right is counterintuitive. Historically, copyright and ownership of ideas made little sense before the Gutenberg printing press. (c. 1450 I think) The first copyright laws were established in England as a means of protecting a printing company's monopoly, in exchange for censorship of material considered seditious. Only one company was legally permitted to publish works and copyright law was intended to protect that monopoly (they even gave the company search and seizure powers usually reserved for the gov't! A model for the BSA perhaps?) Nothing about an author owning his work at all. Of course, US copyright law is based on different notions, but there is no evidence that anyone thought copyright a "natural right" before a bunch of immature egomaniacs found themselves in possession of tons of copyrights in the 20th century as a result of the rise of the music, entertainment, and publishing industries.
The idea that we should, or even can, exert control over what is done with the thoughts and feelings we publish is a uniquely 20th century concept, tied to a certain confluence of technological and market forces, and I predict that it will not survive the 21st century. That's not to say that we will lose a sense of attribution - the ancient Greeks, for example, had a strong sense of the importance of attributing credit for a thought to the thinker, but the idea that the "original" thinker should be able to control how other people use the original thinker's published work, and in what context they use it, would probably have mystified the Greeks.
I find it discouraging that a government would encourage educational institutions to pirate software instead of ironing out legitimate deals with software makers.
I find it encouraging that a government would put public education over corporate profits on their national agenda. This is not that far-fetched or anticapitalistic as you make it seem. In the US all corporations are chartered in the public interest - while these charters are rarely the subject of debate, at least by law corporations are supposed to operate in the public interest, and they are generally outlawed from doing things obnoxious to the public interest (e.g. polluting, selling illegal drugs, etc.). It seems a fair use exception to EULAs that allowed copying software for educational purposes would not be that unreasonable under the circumstances.
Also, I agree that corps should be encouraged to behave responsibly by giving to educational institutions. But most of the big software corporations do very little in real terms other than enough to get good P.R. for it. Your example about "ridiculously deep discounts" from MS assumes that is all they charge - the real charges for that software are levied on the educational institution in the form of large licenses. At the university where I work we have such a license to allow students and faculty to copy windows, etc. for a nominal cost above the price of media, but the institution paid for those licenses to the tune of millions. On top of it, the license is not advertised, which means that many students pay full price for the software anyway.
Perhaps a license to "pirate" is not the answer, but what is valuable here is that one country is at least raising the issue that the way we look at the relationship between software copyrights and legitimate state interests might neede to be rethought.
I'm not sure they should even call it piracy under the circumstances. In theory at least this could be considered fair use; at least one purpose of fair use is to promote knowledge and education. I know current US case law regarding fair use would hardly uphold such an interpretation, but it is not that far-fetched.
Your belief that we can't measure it with electronic equipment is what's ludicrous. The noise is PRODUCED by electronic equipment. Why would you think your amplifier can produce a signal that an oscilloscope can't measure? It's all electrical signals and the oscilloscope is much more sensitive than the mass-manufactured circuits in the amplifier.
It is the effects of this electronic equipment on the human ear and body that I said was difficult to measure. How is that mystical?
That is mysticism. If there were real differences in quality then you could measure them. Detecting things with your "subconscious" is how hippies speak about auras and vibes.
This is ludicrous. Someone else said it, but it bears repeating - the human ear is not just a frequency processor. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure something yet doesn't make it "mysticism." The fact that you can hear real differences in quality means those differences exist, whether or not you can measure them with the available tools. To ignore the evidence of your own senses in favor of a pre-ordained system of measurement, however scientific that system may be, seems to me the height of mysticism, not the reverse.
Only a few people, using Google or other search engines, would be able to guess who I am
Why are you so afraid to be associated with the words you publish?
Don't get me wrong, I think there are good reasons for anonymity in many situations, but not for every public statement you make, unless you really aren't willing to stand behind your words.... I don't think it's a privacy issue the way you make it out to be; after all we are talking about archived web pages and usenet posts, not email. Presumably you are posting to the web because you want people to read what you have to say, no?
You're a troll because the moderation system is, in essence, distributed incompetence.
Hrm. As I write this, the parent (grandparent?) post has been moderated +5 funny which is exactly as it should be. I think the distribution allows for whatever reason that exists in the "common person" (or in this case the common slashdotter, which is already highly uncommon) to outweigh the incompetence. I think the moderation system, as fucked up as it is sometimes, is the best way I've ever seen of trying to do something like this. In the end, interesting and insightful comments do get modded up, and the discussions are usually a joy to read at +3 or above. If you're going to bitch about the moderation system here, at least offer concrete suggestions for improvement.
Seriously though this is what is such bullshit. I'm all for laws protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. But the law in question is not about that at all; it's about protecting a business model against competition. These freakin' armchair capitalists hide behind free market ideology to justify their actions, and yet they have the government step in to squash their competition.
She'd be right to be mad if (1) this was successfully passed off as her work in the West, which won't happen, or (2) if this was direct piracy of her work, which it isn't. Under the circumstances, if she gets mad about it, she's just whining about the fact that she's popular enough that people want to parody (or build upon) her ideas. If you can't take the heat, don't become a famous writer.
Slashdot Mirror
of course it helps that most cell phones have a clock on them so you can tell time just by looking at your cell phone.
Me, I still wear my watch, and I don't own a cell phone. I'm still waiting on the cell phone/pda combination that doesn't suck. And doesn't cost $500.
Homer: "hmmm, they have the internet on computers now?!"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Not in the strict sense, but the post clearly states that click-through licensing is being advocated because it is easier to enforce legally; I suppose the reasoning is that click-through licenses ensure that the end user has had a chance to acknowledge and agree to the license. Which seems totally bogus to me since click throughs can be so easily circumvented. To my mind either you can bind someone by a license based on them using a particular product or you can't; making them jump through a hoop doesn't seem to change that, especially when they are expected to jump through the hoop voluntarily on their own, in the privacy of their own workspace. And it is common knowledge that most end users won't read the entire license before clicking "Agree" anyway, so if the legal system offers this kind of license more protection they are basically acknowledging that the consent of one party of the license agreement is an empty formality.
Uhhh, that is a political explanation of famine.
Exactly. Unfortunately, nobody else wants to run countries.
The idea that we should, or even can, exert control over what is done with the thoughts and feelings we publish is a uniquely 20th century concept, tied to a certain confluence of technological and market forces, and I predict that it will not survive the 21st century. That's not to say that we will lose a sense of attribution - the ancient Greeks, for example, had a strong sense of the importance of attributing credit for a thought to the thinker, but the idea that the "original" thinker should be able to control how other people use the original thinker's published work, and in what context they use it, would probably have mystified the Greeks.
Linux on a toaster exists. But what's cooler is toaster for Linux.
You can't do it; an English translation of the EULA would clearly be a circumvention device. Illegal under the DMCA of course.
I find it encouraging that a government would put public education over corporate profits on their national agenda. This is not that far-fetched or anticapitalistic as you make it seem. In the US all corporations are chartered in the public interest - while these charters are rarely the subject of debate, at least by law corporations are supposed to operate in the public interest, and they are generally outlawed from doing things obnoxious to the public interest (e.g. polluting, selling illegal drugs, etc.). It seems a fair use exception to EULAs that allowed copying software for educational purposes would not be that unreasonable under the circumstances.
Also, I agree that corps should be encouraged to behave responsibly by giving to educational institutions. But most of the big software corporations do very little in real terms other than enough to get good P.R. for it. Your example about "ridiculously deep discounts" from MS assumes that is all they charge - the real charges for that software are levied on the educational institution in the form of large licenses. At the university where I work we have such a license to allow students and faculty to copy windows, etc. for a nominal cost above the price of media, but the institution paid for those licenses to the tune of millions. On top of it, the license is not advertised, which means that many students pay full price for the software anyway.
Perhaps a license to "pirate" is not the answer, but what is valuable here is that one country is at least raising the issue that the way we look at the relationship between software copyrights and legitimate state interests might neede to be rethought.
I'm not sure they should even call it piracy under the circumstances. In theory at least this could be considered fair use; at least one purpose of fair use is to promote knowledge and education. I know current US case law regarding fair use would hardly uphold such an interpretation, but it is not that far-fetched.
Your belief that we can't measure it with electronic equipment is what's ludicrous. The noise is PRODUCED by electronic equipment. Why would you think your amplifier can produce a signal that an oscilloscope can't measure? It's all electrical signals and the oscilloscope is much more sensitive than the mass-manufactured circuits in the amplifier.
It is the effects of this electronic equipment on the human ear and body that I said was difficult to measure. How is that mystical?
This is ludicrous. Someone else said it, but it bears repeating - the human ear is not just a frequency processor. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure something yet doesn't make it "mysticism." The fact that you can hear real differences in quality means those differences exist, whether or not you can measure them with the available tools. To ignore the evidence of your own senses in favor of a pre-ordained system of measurement, however scientific that system may be, seems to me the height of mysticism, not the reverse.
And don't forget those godawful cook books!
Why are you so afraid to be associated with the words you publish?
Don't get me wrong, I think there are good reasons for anonymity in many situations, but not for every public statement you make, unless you really aren't willing to stand behind your words.... I don't think it's a privacy issue the way you make it out to be; after all we are talking about archived web pages and usenet posts, not email. Presumably you are posting to the web because you want people to read what you have to say, no?
Hrm. As I write this, the parent (grandparent?) post has been moderated +5 funny which is exactly as it should be. I think the distribution allows for whatever reason that exists in the "common person" (or in this case the common slashdotter, which is already highly uncommon) to outweigh the incompetence. I think the moderation system, as fucked up as it is sometimes, is the best way I've ever seen of trying to do something like this. In the end, interesting and insightful comments do get modded up, and the discussions are usually a joy to read at +3 or above. If you're going to bitch about the moderation system here, at least offer concrete suggestions for improvement.
Linux on toasters? Yawn. It's been done. I don't want to hear about toasters on linux either.
"Hacked by Chinese"
What is the sound of one jpeg clapping?
Who was that; the KGB?
Seriously though this is what is such bullshit. I'm all for laws protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. But the law in question is not about that at all; it's about protecting a business model against competition. These freakin' armchair capitalists hide behind free market ideology to justify their actions, and yet they have the government step in to squash their competition.
You're probably sending them to Juarez!!! Pirate.
Oh, damn.... it's already been done.
She'd be right to be mad if (1) this was successfully passed off as her work in the West, which won't happen, or (2) if this was direct piracy of her work, which it isn't. Under the circumstances, if she gets mad about it, she's just whining about the fact that she's popular enough that people want to parody (or build upon) her ideas. If you can't take the heat, don't become a famous writer.
to browse slashdot. Sure they can't read the articles but they can look at great pics of case mods!