Re:American ego sparks again
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
Baseball !!! Come on dude, I haven't seen any game more boring than that.
Although I'm not really much of a baseball fan, baseball really is one of those sports that you enjoy a lot more when you understand the subtleties of the strategy, and I recognize that I don't really understand it that well. The reason I brought up baseball is that it's one of the sports that really can have a compelling defensive matchup.
Other sports, on the other hand, are just boring when you have a "big defensive showdown". (American) football is one of those I would classify that way. When you have two great defenses with two mediocre offenses you just see the two teams giving possession back and forth. Booooooring.
The fact you have to compare soccer to Ice Skating and Skiiing is pretty telling.
Why soccer is a bad game
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Yes, I'm an American. Yes, I hate soccer. But I like other sports. The problem with Europeans talking about the "Beautiful Game" is that they have so little exposure to other sports. In the US, we are literally saturated with sports.
Here is the fundamental problem with soccer: the offense/defense balance is completely out of whack. In any good sport, you have a balance between the offense and defense. Soccer is HUGELY biased towards the defense. It's not that "defensive battles" are always bad. In baseball, you can have pitcher duels that are extremely compelling. But in soccer, having an "offensive duel" is a huge joke. A good goalie will beat a good offensive player EVERY TIME. The goalie has way too much of an advantage.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of soccer. But it desperately needs to be fixed. Widening the goal posts would be a great start.
Now, I understand the world's "passion" for the sport. If that's the only sport you have and it's all you grew up with, then it's not surprising that you would be into the game. But there's a reason that kids in the US all grow up playing soccer, and then abandon it as soon as they are physically able to play other sports.
I don't know about the rest of you, but after what MS has done with Win32, I really don't trust them to come up with good API and language standards.
How about this: "I don't know about the rest of you, but after what MIT did with the Xt library, I really don't trust them to come up with a good API". And Xt is (arguably) one of the worst pieces of crap ever written.
I could make the same statement about Motif, (pre-OSX) Apple, etc.
Windowing toolkits are NOTORIOUS for turning into rats nests of APIs layered on APIs. Not to defend Win32, which is truly horrible, but it's not uncommon for things that require backward compatibility to grow more and more out of control until they have to be thrown away entirely.
BTW, I tried to watch that cartoon. It looked intriguing, but it was too choppy when streaming. My connection should be plenty sufficient.
I managed to find a hi-res version off of Grokster. It really is a pretty cool cartoon if you can look past the "controversial" content. It's somewhat of a shame that "intent" doesn't count for anything in cases like this, because it's obviously intended to be funny and not harmful.
Are you trying to be dense? Can you not stop for a second and think that the answer to either of your questions might be,... "Yes!"
And the answer might be "no". I'm trying to get handle on the psychology. Maybe he just needs the perception of an open space, regardless of whether he can see out or not.
Do you like making people uncomfortable as a method to show how cool you are since you have no phobias or do you just lack tact?
Well, he might be "uncomfortable" at the question, but he didn't list any people phobias as part of his problems. I think you're not giving the guy enough credit. Just because he has a phobia doesn't mean that he can't talk rationally about it without collapsing into a quivering mass of goo.
Did it ever occur to you that it's more respectful to just treat someone normally and ask questions rather than tip-toe around them like they are some sort of freak? He brought up the subject, I was just following up.
I'm not saying you tact is not useful, for example, I don't think you yell "HEY THAT'S GREAT! GOOD LUCK, MAN!" when someone tells you they have cancer. But given the tone of the poster's description of his problem, it didn't sound like he needed this delicate handling that you seem to think.
So does that mean you don't fly at night? What about when you're above the clouds? It's not like there's much to see.
Not suffering from any phobias, I guess it's hard for me to understand. Why would "sitting in a box" be any different from sitting in a lecture hall or a movie theature or any other enclosed space? Just the amount of time?
Well, one thing is probably better. It sounds like the cabin will be a lot larger, so it will be less "closed in". I wouldn't be surprised if they had a view port where people can get up and go look out every so often.
Actually, I just about to ask who would care about the fact that there are no window seats. Personally, I like window seats and ask for them every time, but I don't see this as a critical need particularly if this would cut the cost of airline travel.
Is there anyone out there who WOULDN'T fly on it just because it doesn't have windows? I guess you would, but...
As far as who would fly in "radically new, untested airframes", every airliner starts out as a new, untested airframe. I don't see the new Boeing 777 dropping out the sky.
Being one of the "have not's" I had to settle for a *mechanical* pong clone, which actually turned out to be quite cool in and of itself.
Wow, that brings back a memory that I forgot about! Was this the game you were talking about?
I had one of those, and it was pretty fun. It actually had a wind-up mechanism and an LED for the ball. The only thing the batteries did was light up the ball.
With a cell size like that it won't be broadband. You can fit a LOT of users within a 20 mile radius.
That occurred to me, but I would imagine that the cell sites don't have to be 20 miles. If you higher density areas, then you put up higher density cell sites cellular-phone style.
The only question is whether you start getting into huge interference problems at that point. Cell phones seem to have solved these problems, though.
Speaking of WiFi, since Slashdot seems to think this story is interesting (*yawn*) and a much more interesting story doesn't seem to be able to make it to the front page, I recommend checking this story out. Bottom line, a couple of garage tinkerers have managed to extend 802.11b's range to about 20 miles. Big deal, right? We hear about this all the time. The kicker is that they are actually deploying it in some neighborhoods, so it appears to be something real rather than something "we hope to deploy 5 years from now".
We might actually see universal broadband in our lifetimes! (Not that I don't already have a l33t 3 megabit cable modem, but...)
What I especially like about this is that true broadcast broadband would allow a lot of competing providers in each area, instead of needing massive investment in running wires.
You're throwing out and mixing lots of different concepts that have nothing to do with each other. Let's see if we can sort it out.
Then WHY AREN'T YOU BEING PAID FOR THE ADS GATOR SHOWS YOU?
What difference does it make whether I'm paid or not? The only question is whether I'm running a program that I choose to run and modifying the content under my own control. Yes, I am. I could pay Gator for the right to run Gator, and it's exactly the same thing.
You can't selectively chose to replace an ad with a picture of a ducky... because you aren't in control.
You're mixing two different concepts here. 1) Control over the modifications, and 2) control over whether modifications are done at all. What modifications are done is totally irrelevent. The only question is whether I'm authorizing the modifications to be done... and I am. Just as if I hire someone to cut up my magazine. It doesn't matter whether I direct how the magazine is to be cut, the only question is whether I authorize the cutting, and whether I redistribute the cut-up version.
You can't be said to be giving consent to a behavior occuring without your knowlege, which is what happened to a lot of people.
Fine, but this is a totally unrelated concept. If you want to criticize Gator of not making the consent informed enough, I'm with you. But that has nothing to do with whether it's my right to make the consent at all. You have been arguing that I shouldn't even have the right to run Gator if I want to.
Broadcasting libel on a large scale is libel. For the same reason, broadcasting copyright infringement on a large scale is infringement. Theft of market value from the work is the very definition of copyright infringement. Gator's gonna get toasted.
Except that Gator is not broadcasting anything except a set of ads. COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COPY. Gator is not rebroadcasting web pages. All the activity is being done on my computer, authorized by me. There is no copyright violation because there is no copying being done.
I have the right to secretly install software on everybody's computer who will read your post that will intercept their page requests to Slashdot and make it seem you actually agree with me by changing your posts?
Of course not. But again, you bring up irrelevent information. Do I have the right to download a program BY MY CHOICE which modifies THE DISPLAY of posts on Slashdot for my own personal use?
Perhaps you don't mind tossing away your right to be heard with integrity by people; I value it a bit more strongly.
Dude, THINK ABOUT THIS. It's you who are trying to throw away YOUR rights. If you are not allowed to have programs on your computer that might modify copyrighted content, think about where that leads. DeCSS is just the beginning of things like this.
it still doesn't excuse continuing to lecture me in your ignorance about what fair use it; it really isn't my responsibility to explain to you something you should know before lecturing me about it.
Look, I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert on law, but you are misapplying fair-use here. Once again, copyright refers to "rights to copy". The purpose of the fair-use laws are to define when I'm copying materials "in a fair way" that's not a copyright violation. There simply is no copying or rebroadcast here, except for my own personal use.
Look, let me bring back a quote from your previous post:
Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. [...] Again, flatly, totally, utterly, inarguably wrong.
Please explain to me how I am restricted from modifying copyrighted information FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE according to the fair use laws. If you read the fair use laws, you will notice that private, personal use meets the standard of all 4 points. If not, please explain how I'm "totally, utterly, inarguably wrong".
And while you're at it, please answer the question you conveniently ignored: Is it still a copyright violation if I hire Gator to come to my house and paste advertising stickers on my monitor when browsing web sites?
See, this is the crux of where your understanding is flawed. The purpose of copyright law is to control the copying and distribution of materials. There is no copying or redistribution going on here. Only modifying some content in my possession for my own personal use.
Let's look at 1 and 4.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Let's see, since I am performing the modification and not profiting from it, this does not apply. That fact that Gator is making a profit is irrelevent. They are making a profit from distributing their software, not from the republication of the copyrighted material.
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The intent of this is asking the question of whether copying material affects the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Since I'm not redistributing my modified copy of the work, then this section is completely inapplicable.
Trivially false; if the Washington Post consented to the modification, they would not be suing.
My mistake -- I missed the word "originator". As far as they go, it's completely irrelevent whether they consent to the modification, because I am the one authorizing the change for my own use. And this is what you keep missing.
The ads Gator are replacing in your webpages are paid for in checks written to Gator.
This is totally irrelevent. Just like if I hired someone to cut out ads from my magazine, and they replaced them with ads that someone else paid for. The point is that I authorized my magazine to be cut up for my own personal use. That is key. Are you saying that I have no right to hire someone to cut the ads out of my magazines?
Copyright law is heavily based on damages, which is one of the reasons this case is an inevitable win for the Washington Post. When Gator is doing it, that's a different story, then when you're doing it. (If they aren't the ones doing the replacement, they exactly how are they involved anyhow?)
This is what you keep missing: I AM THE ONE DOING IT. It's my computer. Gator is not intercepting the document before it gets to my computer. I am simply running software that performs an operation THAT I AUTHORIZE on a document in my possession for my own personal use. It's none of anyone's business what I do in my own computer.
I have never seen any law stating that someone viewing media with ads is required by law to view the ads. If I choose not to view the ads, that's my legal right. Exactly what method I choose to hide them is irrelevent.
Or let's put it another way. Suppose I had someone from Gator stand in front of my computer and paste stickers over the web page with different ads. Does that still meet your definition of copyright violation? What's the difference?
But if your software caused thousands of viewers to see your modification, I'd sue you for libel.
That's a reasonable point, but not for the reason you think. I would be guilty of libel not because I modified your page or anyone elses page, but because my published program was broadcasting the libelous modification on a mass scale. This would only be relevent to the current case if the content that Gator was inserting was libelous (or other problem) in some way.
Also, you're missing a point; Gator is being sued, not you. What you can do with a page completely fails to defend Gator.
If Gator's sued, then that's an attack on my fair-use rights to modify media in my possession. It's the same as the DeCSS case -- publishers of the DeCSS code are getting attacked to prevent me from being able to excercise my fair-use right to duplicate media in my possession.
Look, I hate to be snotty here, but your post is so riddled with errors that it's hard to take it seriously.
And arrogance doesn't make you any less wrong. I'm not sure if you understand the points I'm making, but I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're just wrong, sorry.
What "fair use" is isn't up for debate, it's a matter of law, and you don't understand it. (And the link works for me...)
Well, the link still doesn't work for me, so if you would like to quote from something from fair use law and prove me wrong, feel free. I would particularly like to hear how my fair-use rights do not allow me to hire someone to cut out the ads from a magazine or allow someone from Gator to paste stickers on my monitor.
You aren't doing a thing to the page. It's being done by a third party, specifically Gator, without consent of the originator.
That's the problem -- it IS being done with the consent of the originator. It might not be informed consent to the level that we all would like, but that's a completely different issue.
Proof: If it were you doing that to the page, where are your payments for the ad space?
The payment is in the form of the services Gator provides (it DOES have some useful functions, by the way). But even if Gator didn't provide one useful thing, it's STILL none of anyone's business if I decide to use them.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gator informs them.
It matters a great deal. What I don't think you're seeing is that Gator is supplying work-for-hire. They are supplying a service to the person using Gator, which includes replacing the ads.
You seem to think it's illegal for me to replace ads in something that I download. I seriously doubt that you can make that case. And yes, it doesn't matter whether I personally do it or an agent for me does it. As long as it's for my personal use, it's exactly the same thing.
If you let Gator do this, then there's really nothing stopping them from modifying the contents of the page, since from a copyright point of view, that's exactly what they're doing.
Which is perfectly, legally, fine -- as long as they are not taking the content and rebroadcasting it. Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. If I want to hire Gator to modify the pages, then that is perfectly within my rights. If I want to download your web site and then hire someone to replace all the content with "Jerf beats his wife", that is fine, too -- as long as it's for my own personal use. Note that this "someone" is making a profit from the activity.
It should be obvious that on this point, the right to integrity is more importent to us little guys then the Washington Post, which has the resources to defend itself.
I think you need to make a distinction between morality and legality. I fully believe it is immoral to block ads on a web site that I frequent. However, I fully defend everyone's legal fair-use rights to do whatever they want (using whatever tool they want) with media (web pages, magazines, newspapers, video, whatever) for their own personal use.
This guy claims to have found a very early Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln as young man. He's been trying to sell it for a lot of money, so he's been in the news. Hard to say absolutely, but I have to admit he makes an interesting case.
Look, I absolutely detest Gator, but I have to defend them on this issue.
What I choose to run in my browser is my own business, just like Microsoft's technology that modified web pages to insert links. Once a page leaves a server and enters my computer, my fair-use rights take over and I can do ANYTHING I want to that page, except rebroadcast it.
Now, people are going to argue that people aren't making an informed choice. And maybe that's true, but it's not strictly Gator's fault. Gator does inform them -- in a slimy way -- but it does inform them.
It's exactly the same as if I had a magazine delivered to my house, and hired someone to cut out all the ads and replace them with other ads. It's none of the magazine's business if I do that, and it's none of anyone else's business if I choose to use Gator.
The author talks about "incompatabilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word" - what's the incompatability? It's between Word, and... things that AREN'T Word.
To be honest, I didn't interpret it that way. Since the subject was operating systems, I interpreted it as "since people are running an operating system incompatible with Windows software, high on the list of headaches is opening files created with Windows software.
Re:read the article
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...he implies that Lindows is in the office suite business. I'm not implying any malice here, but the guy really needs to do a bit more research before opening his yap.
Before flaming the guy, maybe YOU should read a little more closely and do some research. The article says, "High on the list of headaches is incompatibilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word. Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide."
Which is essentially true. If you examine Lindows' web site, you'll notice that the first FAQ says "Our goal is to eventually run some of the more popular Windows® software. That's an ambitious objective that will take time to achieve. At this time, Microsoft® Office 2000 has undergone the most testing and is the most compatible."
Lindows makes no secret that their biggest objective is being able to run Office.
We are talking about legal constructs created specifically to SCREW YOU and avoid all responsibility for the consequences. You should really have no sympathy for artificial persons.
This whole anti-corporation thing is just a straw-man. A corporation is just a container owned by REAL PEOPLE. You aren't just hurting an "artificial person".
Then on the other hand, you say...
and you will end up with something dreadfully similar to communism.
You do realize we are talking about the government seizure of assets, right? REAL PEOPLE own corporations. Sending management to jail (who might not even be shareholders) is a completely different issue from the government destroying the value of the corporation.
If you're pro-capitalism (as you seem to claim), then you should be pro-corporation. Corporations are VITAL to a healthy capitalistic society.
There is a simple way to discourage payola. [... draconian punishment]
There is a simple way to discourage jaywalking: If you are convicted of it, then you are put to death.
I think a lot of you people need to get a little more balance in your lives. Got news for you: what songs radio stations play is just not that important in the scheme of things.
Would you want every commercial radio station gathering together and agreeing only to play paid advertisements and no music?
Think about what an absurd statement that is. The whole point of advertising is for people to listen. You seem to think they if they could, they would be able to sell all 24 hours of radio time to advertisers. How much do you think they would sell if nobody listened?
Payola should be limited in a similar fashion because I shouldn't be forced to listen to music that a record company wants me to listen to on *my* airwaves.
But you're not "forced" to listen to anything. Maybe I just don't have the correct "entitlement" attitude, but I just don't care what is put on "my" airwaves. If there is something worth listening to, I listen. If there isn't, I don't and do something else.
If people would just stop bitching and turn off the radio when you don't like the music, then all this will stop.
The problem is that it's not us, the consumers, that have any control really over what we listen to on the radios, it's the RIAA that PAYS radio stations to play what THEY want us to listen to.
So what? If you don't like what the radio is playing, DON'T LISTEN. Just buy the albums and make your own playlists.
It's absurd to say you don't have any control over what you listen to.
Let me turn the question around. Microsoft claims to innovate. Name me one Microsoft innovation. Cite references.
I made no claims about whether Microsoft innovates or not. I only took issue with the original poster's claim that Microsoft takes credit for things that they don't invent.
I do not have a specific claim of theirs. I must be completely wrong. Microsoft is clearly acting in my best interests after all.
Whether Microsoft acts in your best interest or not is irrelevent to the questio of whether they take credit for things they don't invent.
Slashdot Mirror
Baseball !!! Come on dude, I haven't seen any game more boring than that.
Although I'm not really much of a baseball fan, baseball really is one of those sports that you enjoy a lot more when you understand the subtleties of the strategy, and I recognize that I don't really understand it that well. The reason I brought up baseball is that it's one of the sports that really can have a compelling defensive matchup.
Other sports, on the other hand, are just boring when you have a "big defensive showdown". (American) football is one of those I would classify that way. When you have two great defenses with two mediocre offenses you just see the two teams giving possession back and forth. Booooooring.
The fact you have to compare soccer to Ice Skating and Skiiing is pretty telling.
Yes, I'm an American. Yes, I hate soccer. But I like other sports. The problem with Europeans talking about the "Beautiful Game" is that they have so little exposure to other sports. In the US, we are literally saturated with sports.
Here is the fundamental problem with soccer: the offense/defense balance is completely out of whack. In any good sport, you have a balance between the offense and defense. Soccer is HUGELY biased towards the defense. It's not that "defensive battles" are always bad. In baseball, you can have pitcher duels that are extremely compelling. But in soccer, having an "offensive duel" is a huge joke. A good goalie will beat a good offensive player EVERY TIME. The goalie has way too much of an advantage.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of soccer. But it desperately needs to be fixed. Widening the goal posts would be a great start.
Now, I understand the world's "passion" for the sport. If that's the only sport you have and it's all you grew up with, then it's not surprising that you would be into the game. But there's a reason that kids in the US all grow up playing soccer, and then abandon it as soon as they are physically able to play other sports.
I don't know about the rest of you, but after what MS has done with Win32, I really don't trust them to come up with good API and language standards.
How about this: "I don't know about the rest of you, but after what MIT did with the Xt library, I really don't trust them to come up with a good API". And Xt is (arguably) one of the worst pieces of crap ever written.
I could make the same statement about Motif, (pre-OSX) Apple, etc.
Windowing toolkits are NOTORIOUS for turning into rats nests of APIs layered on APIs. Not to defend Win32, which is truly horrible, but it's not uncommon for things that require backward compatibility to grow more and more out of control until they have to be thrown away entirely.
BTW, I tried to watch that cartoon. It looked intriguing, but it was too choppy when streaming. My connection should be plenty sufficient.
I managed to find a hi-res version off of Grokster. It really is a pretty cool cartoon if you can look past the "controversial" content. It's somewhat of a shame that "intent" doesn't count for anything in cases like this, because it's obviously intended to be funny and not harmful.
Are you trying to be dense? Can you not stop for a second and think that the answer to either of your questions might be, ... "Yes!"
And the answer might be "no". I'm trying to get handle on the psychology. Maybe he just needs the perception of an open space, regardless of whether he can see out or not.
Do you like making people uncomfortable as a method to show how cool you are since you have no phobias or do you just lack tact?
Well, he might be "uncomfortable" at the question, but he didn't list any people phobias as part of his problems. I think you're not giving the guy enough credit. Just because he has a phobia doesn't mean that he can't talk rationally about it without collapsing into a quivering mass of goo.
Did it ever occur to you that it's more respectful to just treat someone normally and ask questions rather than tip-toe around them like they are some sort of freak? He brought up the subject, I was just following up.
I'm not saying you tact is not useful, for example, I don't think you yell "HEY THAT'S GREAT! GOOD LUCK, MAN!" when someone tells you they have cancer. But given the tone of the poster's description of his problem, it didn't sound like he needed this delicate handling that you seem to think.
So does that mean you don't fly at night? What about when you're above the clouds? It's not like there's much to see.
Not suffering from any phobias, I guess it's hard for me to understand. Why would "sitting in a box" be any different from sitting in a lecture hall or a movie theature or any other enclosed space? Just the amount of time?
Well, one thing is probably better. It sounds like the cabin will be a lot larger, so it will be less "closed in". I wouldn't be surprised if they had a view port where people can get up and go look out every so often.
Actually, I just about to ask who would care about the fact that there are no window seats. Personally, I like window seats and ask for them every time, but I don't see this as a critical need particularly if this would cut the cost of airline travel.
Is there anyone out there who WOULDN'T fly on it just because it doesn't have windows? I guess you would, but...
As far as who would fly in "radically new, untested airframes", every airliner starts out as a new, untested airframe. I don't see the new Boeing 777 dropping out the sky.
Being one of the "have not's" I had to settle for a *mechanical* pong clone, which actually turned out to be quite cool in and of itself.
Wow, that brings back a memory that I forgot about! Was this the game you were talking about?
I had one of those, and it was pretty fun. It actually had a wind-up mechanism and an LED for the ball. The only thing the batteries did was light up the ball.
Oops. Never mind. :)
With a cell size like that it won't be broadband. You can fit a LOT of users within a 20 mile radius.
That occurred to me, but I would imagine that the cell sites don't have to be 20 miles. If you higher density areas, then you put up higher density cell sites cellular-phone style.
The only question is whether you start getting into huge interference problems at that point. Cell phones seem to have solved these problems, though.
Speaking of WiFi, since Slashdot seems to think this story is interesting (*yawn*) and a much more interesting story doesn't seem to be able to make it to the front page, I recommend checking this story out. Bottom line, a couple of garage tinkerers have managed to extend 802.11b's range to about 20 miles. Big deal, right? We hear about this all the time. The kicker is that they are actually deploying it in some neighborhoods, so it appears to be something real rather than something "we hope to deploy 5 years from now".
We might actually see universal broadband in our lifetimes! (Not that I don't already have a l33t 3 megabit cable modem, but...)
What I especially like about this is that true broadcast broadband would allow a lot of competing providers in each area, instead of needing massive investment in running wires.
You're throwing out and mixing lots of different concepts that have nothing to do with each other. Let's see if we can sort it out.
Then WHY AREN'T YOU BEING PAID FOR THE ADS GATOR SHOWS YOU?
What difference does it make whether I'm paid or not? The only question is whether I'm running a program that I choose to run and modifying the content under my own control. Yes, I am. I could pay Gator for the right to run Gator, and it's exactly the same thing.
You can't selectively chose to replace an ad with a picture of a ducky... because you aren't in control.
You're mixing two different concepts here. 1) Control over the modifications, and 2) control over whether modifications are done at all. What modifications are done is totally irrelevent. The only question is whether I'm authorizing the modifications to be done ... and I am. Just as if I hire someone to cut up my magazine. It doesn't matter whether I direct how the magazine is to be cut, the only question is whether I authorize the cutting, and whether I redistribute the cut-up version.
You can't be said to be giving consent to a behavior occuring without your knowlege, which is what happened to a lot of people.
Fine, but this is a totally unrelated concept. If you want to criticize Gator of not making the consent informed enough, I'm with you. But that has nothing to do with whether it's my right to make the consent at all. You have been arguing that I shouldn't even have the right to run Gator if I want to.
Broadcasting libel on a large scale is libel. For the same reason, broadcasting copyright infringement on a large scale is infringement. Theft of market value from the work is the very definition of copyright infringement. Gator's gonna get toasted.
Except that Gator is not broadcasting anything except a set of ads. COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COPY. Gator is not rebroadcasting web pages. All the activity is being done on my computer, authorized by me. There is no copyright violation because there is no copying being done.
I have the right to secretly install software on everybody's computer who will read your post that will intercept their page requests to Slashdot and make it seem you actually agree with me by changing your posts?
Of course not. But again, you bring up irrelevent information. Do I have the right to download a program BY MY CHOICE which modifies THE DISPLAY of posts on Slashdot for my own personal use?
Perhaps you don't mind tossing away your right to be heard with integrity by people; I value it a bit more strongly.
Dude, THINK ABOUT THIS. It's you who are trying to throw away YOUR rights. If you are not allowed to have programs on your computer that might modify copyrighted content, think about where that leads. DeCSS is just the beginning of things like this.
it still doesn't excuse continuing to lecture me in your ignorance about what fair use it; it really isn't my responsibility to explain to you something you should know before lecturing me about it.
Look, I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert on law, but you are misapplying fair-use here. Once again, copyright refers to "rights to copy". The purpose of the fair-use laws are to define when I'm copying materials "in a fair way" that's not a copyright violation. There simply is no copying or rebroadcast here, except for my own personal use.
Look, let me bring back a quote from your previous post:
Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. [...] Again, flatly, totally, utterly, inarguably wrong.
Please explain to me how I am restricted from modifying copyrighted information FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE according to the fair use laws. If you read the fair use laws, you will notice that private, personal use meets the standard of all 4 points. If not, please explain how I'm "totally, utterly, inarguably wrong".
And while you're at it, please answer the question you conveniently ignored: Is it still a copyright violation if I hire Gator to come to my house and paste advertising stickers on my monitor when browsing web sites?
See, this is the crux of where your understanding is flawed. The purpose of copyright law is to control the copying and distribution of materials. There is no copying or redistribution going on here. Only modifying some content in my possession for my own personal use.
Let's look at 1 and 4.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Let's see, since I am performing the modification and not profiting from it, this does not apply. That fact that Gator is making a profit is irrelevent. They are making a profit from distributing their software, not from the republication of the copyrighted material.
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The intent of this is asking the question of whether copying material affects the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Since I'm not redistributing my modified copy of the work, then this section is completely inapplicable.
Trivially false; if the Washington Post consented to the modification, they would not be suing.
My mistake -- I missed the word "originator". As far as they go, it's completely irrelevent whether they consent to the modification, because I am the one authorizing the change for my own use. And this is what you keep missing.
The ads Gator are replacing in your webpages are paid for in checks written to Gator.
This is totally irrelevent. Just like if I hired someone to cut out ads from my magazine, and they replaced them with ads that someone else paid for. The point is that I authorized my magazine to be cut up for my own personal use. That is key. Are you saying that I have no right to hire someone to cut the ads out of my magazines?
Copyright law is heavily based on damages, which is one of the reasons this case is an inevitable win for the Washington Post. When Gator is doing it, that's a different story, then when you're doing it. (If they aren't the ones doing the replacement, they exactly how are they involved anyhow?)
This is what you keep missing: I AM THE ONE DOING IT. It's my computer. Gator is not intercepting the document before it gets to my computer. I am simply running software that performs an operation THAT I AUTHORIZE on a document in my possession for my own personal use. It's none of anyone's business what I do in my own computer.
I have never seen any law stating that someone viewing media with ads is required by law to view the ads. If I choose not to view the ads, that's my legal right. Exactly what method I choose to hide them is irrelevent.
Or let's put it another way. Suppose I had someone from Gator stand in front of my computer and paste stickers over the web page with different ads. Does that still meet your definition of copyright violation? What's the difference?
But if your software caused thousands of viewers to see your modification, I'd sue you for libel.
That's a reasonable point, but not for the reason you think. I would be guilty of libel not because I modified your page or anyone elses page, but because my published program was broadcasting the libelous modification on a mass scale. This would only be relevent to the current case if the content that Gator was inserting was libelous (or other problem) in some way.
Also, you're missing a point; Gator is being sued, not you. What you can do with a page completely fails to defend Gator.
If Gator's sued, then that's an attack on my fair-use rights to modify media in my possession. It's the same as the DeCSS case -- publishers of the DeCSS code are getting attacked to prevent me from being able to excercise my fair-use right to duplicate media in my possession.
Look, I hate to be snotty here, but your post is so riddled with errors that it's hard to take it seriously.
And arrogance doesn't make you any less wrong. I'm not sure if you understand the points I'm making, but I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're just wrong, sorry.
What "fair use" is isn't up for debate, it's a matter of law, and you don't understand it. (And the link works for me...)
Well, the link still doesn't work for me, so if you would like to quote from something from fair use law and prove me wrong, feel free. I would particularly like to hear how my fair-use rights do not allow me to hire someone to cut out the ads from a magazine or allow someone from Gator to paste stickers on my monitor.
You aren't doing a thing to the page. It's being done by a third party, specifically Gator, without consent of the originator.
That's the problem -- it IS being done with the consent of the originator. It might not be informed consent to the level that we all would like, but that's a completely different issue.
Proof: If it were you doing that to the page, where are your payments for the ad space?
The payment is in the form of the services Gator provides (it DOES have some useful functions, by the way). But even if Gator didn't provide one useful thing, it's STILL none of anyone's business if I decide to use them.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gator informs them.
It matters a great deal. What I don't think you're seeing is that Gator is supplying work-for-hire. They are supplying a service to the person using Gator, which includes replacing the ads.
You seem to think it's illegal for me to replace ads in something that I download. I seriously doubt that you can make that case. And yes, it doesn't matter whether I personally do it or an agent for me does it. As long as it's for my personal use, it's exactly the same thing.
If you let Gator do this, then there's really nothing stopping them from modifying the contents of the page, since from a copyright point of view, that's exactly what they're doing.
Which is perfectly, legally, fine -- as long as they are not taking the content and rebroadcasting it. Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. If I want to hire Gator to modify the pages, then that is perfectly within my rights. If I want to download your web site and then hire someone to replace all the content with "Jerf beats his wife", that is fine, too -- as long as it's for my own personal use. Note that this "someone" is making a profit from the activity.
It should be obvious that on this point, the right to integrity is more importent to us little guys then the Washington Post, which has the resources to defend itself.
I think you need to make a distinction between morality and legality. I fully believe it is immoral to block ads on a web site that I frequent. However, I fully defend everyone's legal fair-use rights to do whatever they want (using whatever tool they want) with media (web pages, magazines, newspapers, video, whatever) for their own personal use.
P.S. Your link doesn't work.
This guy claims to have found a very early Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln as young man. He's been trying to sell it for a lot of money, so he's been in the news. Hard to say absolutely, but I have to admit he makes an interesting case.
Look, I absolutely detest Gator, but I have to defend them on this issue.
What I choose to run in my browser is my own business, just like Microsoft's technology that modified web pages to insert links. Once a page leaves a server and enters my computer, my fair-use rights take over and I can do ANYTHING I want to that page, except rebroadcast it.
Now, people are going to argue that people aren't making an informed choice. And maybe that's true, but it's not strictly Gator's fault. Gator does inform them -- in a slimy way -- but it does inform them.
It's exactly the same as if I had a magazine delivered to my house, and hired someone to cut out all the ads and replace them with other ads. It's none of the magazine's business if I do that, and it's none of anyone else's business if I choose to use Gator.
The author talks about "incompatabilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word" - what's the incompatability? It's between Word, and... things that AREN'T Word.
To be honest, I didn't interpret it that way. Since the subject was operating systems, I interpreted it as "since people are running an operating system incompatible with Windows software, high on the list of headaches is opening files created with Windows software.
Before flaming the guy, maybe YOU should read a little more closely and do some research. The article says, "High on the list of headaches is incompatibilities with files created with Microsoft products like Word. Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide."
Which is essentially true. If you examine Lindows' web site, you'll notice that the first FAQ says "Our goal is to eventually run some of the more popular Windows® software. That's an ambitious objective that will take time to achieve. At this time, Microsoft® Office 2000 has undergone the most testing and is the most compatible."
Lindows makes no secret that their biggest objective is being able to run Office.
On the one hand, you say...
We are talking about legal constructs created specifically to SCREW YOU and avoid all responsibility for the consequences. You should really have no sympathy for artificial persons.
This whole anti-corporation thing is just a straw-man. A corporation is just a container owned by REAL PEOPLE. You aren't just hurting an "artificial person".
Then on the other hand, you say...
and you will end up with something dreadfully similar to communism.
You do realize we are talking about the government seizure of assets, right? REAL PEOPLE own corporations. Sending management to jail (who might not even be shareholders) is a completely different issue from the government destroying the value of the corporation.
If you're pro-capitalism (as you seem to claim), then you should be pro-corporation. Corporations are VITAL to a healthy capitalistic society.
There is a simple way to discourage payola. [... draconian punishment]
There is a simple way to discourage jaywalking: If you are convicted of it, then you are put to death.
I think a lot of you people need to get a little more balance in your lives. Got news for you: what songs radio stations play is just not that important in the scheme of things.
Would you want every commercial radio station gathering together and agreeing only to play paid advertisements and no music?
Think about what an absurd statement that is. The whole point of advertising is for people to listen. You seem to think they if they could, they would be able to sell all 24 hours of radio time to advertisers. How much do you think they would sell if nobody listened?
Payola should be limited in a similar fashion because I shouldn't be forced to listen to music that a record company wants me to listen to on *my* airwaves.
But you're not "forced" to listen to anything. Maybe I just don't have the correct "entitlement" attitude, but I just don't care what is put on "my" airwaves. If there is something worth listening to, I listen. If there isn't, I don't and do something else.
If people would just stop bitching and turn off the radio when you don't like the music, then all this will stop.
The problem is that it's not us, the consumers, that have any control really over what we listen to on the radios, it's the RIAA that PAYS radio stations to play what THEY want us to listen to.
So what? If you don't like what the radio is playing, DON'T LISTEN. Just buy the albums and make your own playlists.
It's absurd to say you don't have any control over what you listen to.
Let me turn the question around. Microsoft claims to innovate. Name me one Microsoft innovation. Cite references.
I made no claims about whether Microsoft innovates or not. I only took issue with the original poster's claim that Microsoft takes credit for things that they don't invent.
I do not have a specific claim of theirs. I must be completely wrong. Microsoft is clearly acting in my best interests after all.
Whether Microsoft acts in your best interest or not is irrelevent to the questio of whether they take credit for things they don't invent.