The author suggests that rather than legislate, the Government should just declare ownership over the lines, or at least threaten to. That's what he means by using eminent domain.
In Frank Ahrens recent article, "U.S. Joins Industry in Piracy War", Thursday, June 15, 2006, Ahrens says the following:
"Last month, Swedish authorities briefly shut down an illegal file-sharing Web site after receiving a briefing on the site's activities from U.S. officials in April in Washington. The raid incited political and popular backlash in the Scandinavian nation."
His reference to the Pirate Bay as "illegal" is factually incorrect. In Sweden, the fact is that the Pirate Bay's legal status is unclear and has been debated extensively. The law change in the previous line that Ahrens references, "Sweden change its laws to make it a crime to swap copyrighted movies and music for free over the Internet." does not directly incriminate the Pirate Bay. This is because the Pirate Bay does not host any copyrighted material whatsoever on its servers. It merely provides pointers to other sites on the internet. In the United States, laws against "contributory infringement" would be applicable, however Sweden does not have these laws.
This inaccuracy has a very real effect on shaping the perceptions of the issue. The fact is that there is a very real debate on the world stage right now about the extent to which U.S. intellectual property laws should be respected globally. By jumping the gun and calling the Pirate Bay illegal when it is not stigmatizes one side of the debate unfairly and introduces bias where there should be none.
I urge others to do the same. It only takes a few minutes.
This is a bad sign. Previous DRM schemes in the marketplace like DivX were isolated to systems that were trying to sell in parallel with existing non-restrictive systems. Getting big players like HP and Phillips to incorporate this kind of DRM into their main lines of players is a different kind of thing. First of all, it is more likely to get market uptake when it is bundled into their standard models, due to people not understanding the difference. Also, this DRM scheme is likely to be less annoying the blazonly bad DivX model.
Secondly, it is troubling that HP and Phillips are now collaborating with content producers to put these restrictions in place. This is a far cry from the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ads from Apple. I'd much prefer that tech companies and content producers maintain a healthy distance from one another. Sadly, I think we are only going to see more of this as the two industries creep further into bed together.
Despite the fact that having a computer that could think the way a person does would
A) tell us a whole heck of a lot about how we think
and
B) make life tons more convenient for all of us
Few people with lots of money to throw around seem to think this is realistic or don't know where to put their money to acheive this goal. Until researchers in high calibur places start taking hard AI seriously, neither will people with big pockets.
At H2K this weekend, Martin Garbus made a half hour appearance before hustling off to settle last minute issues for the case today.
He is very well of Kaplan's bias and said he expects that the case will not be won on this level, but later on in appeal.
Robin Gross from eff.org mentioned they intended to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary (perhaps its time to donate some money to this worthy cause?).
So sit tight folks; don't expect any kind of quick resolution on this one.
We know that James is an avid hunter, and as such, he would obviously be a opponent of increased gun control. Guns are a tool that can be used for good or evil, and are quite frequently used for evil, to break laws, etc. How is Napster any different? One cannot prove that Napster exists for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate the laws. In fact, Napster warns its users against violating the laws, just like there's a waiting period on a gun, etc. It is perfectly reasonable that people might want to use Napster to share legal, uncopyrighted MP3s, just like it is perfectly reasonable that people might want to use guns for something legal, like hunting. Cracking down on Napster for not enforcing the laws is valid, just like one would crack down on a store that sold guns without permits, but isn't eliminating Napster all together akin to banning guns entirely as well?
Slashdot Mirror
...countdown to being Slashdotted.
The author suggests that rather than legislate, the Government should just declare ownership over the lines, or at least threaten to. That's what he means by using eminent domain.
Strikes me as a really bad idea.
Did anyone RTFA and notice this?
Thanks for your message. You inspired me to send my own letter to letters@washpost.com, and the Ombudsman http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/deb orah+howell/ and the author himself http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/fra nk+ahrens/
I urge others to do the same. It only takes a few minutes.
This is a bad sign. Previous DRM schemes in the marketplace like DivX were isolated to systems that were trying to sell in parallel with existing non-restrictive systems. Getting big players like HP and Phillips to incorporate this kind of DRM into their main lines of players is a different kind of thing. First of all, it is more likely to get market uptake when it is bundled into their standard models, due to people not understanding the difference. Also, this DRM scheme is likely to be less annoying the blazonly bad DivX model.
Secondly, it is troubling that HP and Phillips are now collaborating with content producers to put these restrictions in place. This is a far cry from the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ads from Apple. I'd much prefer that tech companies and content producers maintain a healthy distance from one another. Sadly, I think we are only going to see more of this as the two industries creep further into bed together.
The funny thing about analog service, at least my experience on Sprint, is that they charge you
AN ARM AND A LEG
to use it.
So I'm not sure its a huge loss...
--Stephen
Art which uses found objects, cultural references, preexisting stories may be protected under the fair use doctrine.
To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)
more here
--Stephen
Has anyone else been playing too much Warcraft III? The first thing that came into my mind was that Water Elemental thingy..
Sigh,
Stephen
This is absolutely right.
Despite the fact that having a computer that could think the way a person does would
A) tell us a whole heck of a lot about how we think
and
B) make life tons more convenient for all of us
Few people with lots of money to throw around seem to think this is realistic or don't know where to put their money to acheive this goal. Until researchers in high calibur places start taking hard AI seriously, neither will people with big pockets.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
At H2K this weekend, Martin Garbus made a half hour appearance before hustling off to settle last minute issues for the case today.
He is very well of Kaplan's bias and said he expects that the case will not be won on this level, but later on in appeal.
Robin Gross from eff.org mentioned they intended to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary (perhaps its time to donate some money to this worthy cause?).
So sit tight folks; don't expect any kind of quick resolution on this one.
--Lomak
We know that James is an avid hunter, and as such, he would obviously be a opponent of increased gun control. Guns are a tool that can be used for good or evil, and are quite frequently used for evil, to break laws, etc. How is Napster any different? One cannot prove that Napster exists for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate the laws. In fact, Napster warns its users against violating the laws, just like there's a waiting period on a gun, etc. It is perfectly reasonable that people might want to use Napster to share legal, uncopyrighted MP3s, just like it is perfectly reasonable that people might want to use guns for something legal, like hunting. Cracking down on Napster for not enforcing the laws is valid, just like one would crack down on a store that sold guns without permits, but isn't eliminating Napster all together akin to banning guns entirely as well?