Yeah, you're right about theft being a universal taboo. Doesn't matter if a society is Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Shinto, atheist/Buddhist, tribal, or whatever, people don't want their stuff taken without their consent.
By contrast, copyright is a purely arbitrary law. That's not to say people shouldn't follow arbitrary laws (like staying on the right side of the road), but if those laws become too onerous (like having a bigger punishment than for murder or rape), people are going to lose respect for the system.
>First, trying to enact a vague law that blanket invalidates a specific set of already-granted patents would pretty obviously be declared unconstitutional (not that it would ever pass anyway).
It's not unconstitutional. The same constitution that provides for patents also provides for eminent domain, and government use of patents without a license has been held to be a taking under eminent domain. This may entail compensation, but it's not unconstitutional.
Thanks for the breath of fresh air in series of corporatist apologies.
I've been using the analogy that people weren't forced to pay to encode the sounds of language into the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. And they shouldn't have to pay to encode audio/video into a common playable format.
Well, is the ability to communicate sounds and visuals digitally not necessary? I say it's highly necessary. You never needed to pay anyone for the encoding of sounds into the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. Nor for printing (in the US). Why should people in the 21st century have to pay for each instance of digital communication? If this isn't a public purpose, what is?
Especially if the government is going adopt H.264 as a defacto standard (which seems likely to happen by default).
I agree that seizing a property only to turn around and give it to a specific private party (like giving ghetto properties to developers) is blatantly wrong.
But that's not what we're talking about here.
Since we're on the subject, is there any other way to build a road than by eminent domain if you don't want it to look like a step function?
I've said something along the same lines in posts on this subject over the past few weeks:
The government should seize the H.264 patents via eminent domain or other legal structure, compensate the parties involved with a one-time payment, and make the patents freely available for all.
The reasoning is the same as for seizure of real property which stands in the way of a public purpose (road, fort, etc.).
The public purpose for freely shareable audio/video seems quite clear, especially if H.264 is going to be mandated (even indirectly) through various government decrees, regulations, etc., or even if the government adopts an existing industry standard.
The basic methods of communication need to be unencumbered (libre==free). This is a point that corporations will not understand, but it's surprising how much anti-freedom sentiment there is on Slashdot.
The predominant mode of communication in every era has been free (or, where it hasn't been, people have militated against that).
Quill - free to use, no royalties. Movable type - you don't have to pay anything to use the letters of the Latin alphabet Digital text (HTML) - you don't have to pay royalties to Tim Berners-Lee
So why should digital video be different? Pay to view, pay to create. It's not the price, it's the principal.
And if this is going to be a government-mandated standard, the government would be justified in taking the patent under eminent domain, compensating MPEG-LA, and allowing free use of the codec.
The way some people are saying "just do what people want", I would think that they'd cheer even more if Ubuntu just stopped distributing Linux and became an MS Windows OEM and wholesaler.
What I don't understand is how Ubuntu (or OEMs) could take a GNU/Linux base, add non-free and patented components, and sell the result as a unit.
Doesn't the GPL prevent this?
This is different from what happens now: The base install is free, but there are links provided or you are prompted to install non-free software if you so choose (like MP3 codecs or Nvidia drivers).
Best solution to that is to just run with JavaScript off. The JavaScript blocker is integrated in the latest Chrome and Chromium for Linux. (You may or may not have to use the Development channel for Windows).
Anyway, after you turn JavaScript (and plugins) off, you can turn it on for individual sites (like YouTube) just by clicking in the URL bar.
If JavaScript and Flash are off, the vast majority of ads are simply not loaded.
Does the moderator want to post a rebuttal to the fact that the mutter window manager for GNOME Shell constantly uses 50% CPU when it's doing nothing (i.e., the shell isn't even showing)?
Well, if they're using 192.168.1.x, can't you use 192.168.2.x ?
Also, if you have two ethernet interfaces, one of which is 192.168.1.x, and a Netgear WGR640 is on the other trying to also use that block, the router will autoconfigure to use 10.0.x.x . Does anyone know offhand if you can use other private (or not) netblocks manually?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, war is peace, etc.
In other news, restaurants are going to try to outlaw anti-competitive "kitchens", in which people make food and give (for free!) to others.
Yeah, you're right about theft being a universal taboo. Doesn't matter if a society is Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Shinto, atheist/Buddhist, tribal, or whatever, people don't want their stuff taken without their consent.
By contrast, copyright is a purely arbitrary law. That's not to say people shouldn't follow arbitrary laws (like staying on the right side of the road), but if those laws become too onerous (like having a bigger punishment than for murder or rape), people are going to lose respect for the system.
>How exactly are they going to turn off the internet?
They're going to have a audio kill-switch triggered by vuvuzela.
This.
MPEG-LA: VP8 infringes on our patents. Relent or die.
Google: Bring it on.
[Followed by the potential of losing their entire H264 revenue stream, MPEG-LA prefers to just live and let live as far as VP8 is concerned.]
MPEG-LA: Uncle! We won't sue if you don't sue.
What I'm wondering is, the restriction against champtery isn't really enforced anymore, is it?
I mean what about all of the legal defense funds, like the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Palin defense fund?
Weren't their legal actions funded by people who had no standing in their cases?
Or is it that you can't fund a plaintiff, but you can fund a defense?
Finally, what about contingency fee for lawyers? Aren't the lawyers, in effect, funding lawsuits in return for a big payoff?
What I'm wondering is how the whole MPEG-LA business isn't or can't be prosecuted as racketeering under RICO.
Does NYCountryLawyer have anything to say about this?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand why it would be a summary dismissal.
Are you saying that the court would hold that if MPEG-LA wants to go after users of WebM, they have to go after H264 users in a similar manner?
After the first billion or so, there's a limit to how much better of a lawyer you can buy.
No, actually BP doesn't seem to be legally responsible for all the damages. It'll only be responsible for $75 million of it.
That's the cap on oil spill liability that was imposed after Valdez in return for oil companies contributing 8 cents a barrel to a cleanup fund.
I, for one, welcome our new Cylon overlords.
1. cat /dev/random /dev/pcaudio
2. ???
3. Profit!!
>First, trying to enact a vague law that blanket invalidates a specific set of already-granted patents would pretty obviously be declared unconstitutional (not that it would ever pass anyway).
It's not unconstitutional. The same constitution that provides for patents also provides for eminent domain, and government use of patents without a license has been held to be a taking under eminent domain. This may entail compensation, but it's not unconstitutional.
Erm, was the world falling apart before the advent of H.264?
Thanks for the breath of fresh air in series of corporatist apologies.
I've been using the analogy that people weren't forced to pay to encode the sounds of language into the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. And they shouldn't have to pay to encode audio/video into a common playable format.
Well, is the ability to communicate sounds and visuals digitally not necessary? I say it's highly necessary. You never needed to pay anyone for the encoding of sounds into the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. Nor for printing (in the US). Why should people in the 21st century have to pay for each instance of digital communication? If this isn't a public purpose, what is?
Especially if the government is going adopt H.264 as a defacto standard (which seems likely to happen by default).
I agree that seizing a property only to turn around and give it to a specific private party (like giving ghetto properties to developers) is blatantly wrong.
But that's not what we're talking about here.
Since we're on the subject, is there any other way to build a road than by eminent domain if you don't want it to look like a step function?
I've said something along the same lines in posts on this subject over the past few weeks:
The government should seize the H.264 patents via eminent domain or other legal structure, compensate the parties involved with a one-time payment, and make the patents freely available for all.
Governmental use of a patented invention is viewed as an eminent domain taking of a license under the patent and not as a tort.
The reasoning is the same as for seizure of real property which stands in the way of a public purpose (road, fort, etc.).
The public purpose for freely shareable audio/video seems quite clear, especially if H.264 is going to be mandated (even indirectly) through various government decrees, regulations, etc., or even if the government adopts an existing industry standard.
Yours is the best post in this entire discussion.
The basic methods of communication need to be unencumbered (libre==free). This is a point that corporations will not understand, but it's surprising how much anti-freedom sentiment there is on Slashdot.
The predominant mode of communication in every era has been free (or, where it hasn't been, people have militated against that).
Quill - free to use, no royalties.
Movable type - you don't have to pay anything to use the letters of the Latin alphabet
Digital text (HTML) - you don't have to pay royalties to Tim Berners-Lee
So why should digital video be different? Pay to view, pay to create. It's not the price, it's the principal.
And if this is going to be a government-mandated standard, the government would be justified in taking the patent under eminent domain, compensating MPEG-LA, and allowing free use of the codec.
The way some people are saying "just do what people want", I would think that they'd cheer even more if Ubuntu just stopped distributing Linux and became an MS Windows OEM and wholesaler.
What I don't understand is how Ubuntu (or OEMs) could take a GNU/Linux base, add non-free and patented components, and sell the result as a unit.
Doesn't the GPL prevent this?
This is different from what happens now: The base install is free, but there are links provided or you are prompted to install non-free software if you so choose (like MP3 codecs or Nvidia drivers).
You probably already know this, but you can have multiple versions of Java installed on Ubuntu (and maybe Debian).
You can switch among those at will:
sudo update-alternatives --config java
Best solution to that is to just run with JavaScript off. The JavaScript blocker is integrated in the latest Chrome and Chromium for Linux. (You may or may not have to use the Development channel for Windows).
Anyway, after you turn JavaScript (and plugins) off, you can turn it on for individual sites (like YouTube) just by clicking in the URL bar.
If JavaScript and Flash are off, the vast majority of ads are simply not loaded.
I want Frozen Bubble!
Who moderated this as a Troll (0)?
Does the moderator want to post a rebuttal to the fact that the mutter window manager for GNOME Shell constantly uses 50% CPU when it's doing nothing (i.e., the shell isn't even showing)?
>Instead of 10.0.0.1 you can write 10.1 .
It works!
Wow, the stuff you learn on Slashdot comments.
Just confirmed it works with ping, ssh, and telnet on Ubuntu.
Well, if they're using 192.168.1.x, can't you use 192.168.2.x ?
Also, if you have two ethernet interfaces, one of which is 192.168.1.x, and a Netgear WGR640 is on the other trying to also use that block, the router will autoconfigure to use 10.0.x.x . Does anyone know offhand if you can use other private (or not) netblocks manually?