I think encouraging the development of said formulas is a bigger concern than disclosure. That said, it doesn't appear that patents have worked well for either or those goals.
Somebody tell me this is a joke. This is in line with the Robot Chicken sketches where Hungry Hungry Hippos and Chutes and Ladders were made into films.
I suspect that is the case as well. That's why I feel we should call them on their bullshit. If the problem really is what they say it is, there's a much better solution, so this isn't a valid justification.
I don't think I agree. He seems to want to use the same internet separated by software, while I want a physically separate network if there has to be any direct intercommunication, and in cases where there doesn't have to be, there shouldn't by any connection at all.
It sounds more like he wants to use the same cables, and try and wall it off via hardcore authentication. My solution is completely separate wires if communication is needed for a system, and no wires if direct communication isn't needed
"Core elements of our electric grid, of our financial, transportation and communications infrastructure would be obvious candidates. But we simply cannot leave that core infrastructure on which the life and death of Americans depends without better security."
Here's an idea, if a service being infiltrated can result in deaths, DON'T CONNECT IT TO THE FUCKING INTERNET
They have taken to DRM fairly quickly, but I don't think frivlous lawsuits really count as a technological advances.
But as I said, the record labels are fighting Google's services themselves. Kazaa and the RIAA are on the same side of this issue in being anti-innovator.
Actually, the big labels are opposing 'music lockers', and they aren't the targets of this lawsuit. Nailing the music industry for patent infringement is difficult, given that they've resisted just about every relevant technological advance in the last century.
It depends upon how you interpret copyright, mostly depending on whether you see copyright as a pragmatic tool or as an author's natural right. In the US, it's an agreement in which the public cedes a bit of liberty regarding copying to authors in hopes that giving authors this power results in more works being authored, putting the US deep within the 'pragmatic tool' group. Absent a voluntary international agreement for recognizing copyright of other countries, the citizens of another country have not taken part of that deal, so they have no obligations to not copy works of US authors.
Where a lot of the concern lies IMO is that much of the agreements that have been signed regarding copyright have strings attached, which makes calling them 'voluntary' questionable. If we see free trade as the norm, and restricted trade as a punishment, then Western nations are implicitly and sometimes explicitly threatening punishment for not doing something they have no obligation to do. That is imperialism/bullying/etc., and cannot be just.
It seems to be used in place of money for bail. The kid is free to stay in jail (or wherever they are keeping him), so it's not seizing of property any more than other bail is.
The Catholic Church did have some similarities, but they don't bode well for Big Content. The Church engaged in repressive censorship that is directly contrary to the principles of modern democracies. Big Content acting like an ancient tyrant doesn't do much for justification.
Copying something you didn't make yourself is generally classified as stealing unless the creator specifically says otherwise, and always has been, long before there was copyright law, regardless of whether the original continues to exist.
No, copying wasn't limited before copyright (I'm counting the European printer monopolies whose primary purpose was censorship here) and copyright infringement is not theft.
When the pricipal of your child's elementary school calls because your child is caught copying the test answers off the kid next to him in class, when the cops bring home your teenager who was caught trying to pass off $20 bills he scanned and printed with his laserjet, when your college kid is facing being kicked out of school because she downloaded essays off the internet, I'm sure you're going to pat all of them on the head and say "good kids! just like I taught you! copying is good!"
Those are all cases of fraud. The kid who copies answers is falsely claiming those answers as answers that they came up with on their own. The teenager who is falsely claiming the authenticity of those $20 bills. The college kid getting kicked out school is again making a false claim of authorship. If the children in these cases were honest about the situation (such as Jimmy writing clearly on the paper he turned in that it was copied from Susie's paper), they become more humorous than troubling.
That's a horrible justification. The copyright system is explicitly bound by the constitution to exist ONLY for the purposes of a public benefit. If it doesn't provide a public benefit, than Congress is not entitled to pass such laws. Our current system doesn't (and there's not good evidence that any system we had ever did), but SCOTUS has given them a lot of leeway. Furthermore, copyright was not created to regulate individuals, so it's even more poorly suited for this situation. I don't respect unjust laws, and neither should you.
Yes I know you think the law has failed, but what if it was the law that failed at convicting a criminal that you're sure is guilty. Are you now allowed to go shoot them because the law "utterly failed in that respect"?
Murder and other criminal actions generally don't have the same kind of conditions attached to it as copyright law. As a general rule, killing is not okay, and things like self-defense are exceptions. However, uninhibited copying is normally okay, and copyright is the exception, which itself is only justified by a public benefit.
That's how freedom works. Where a reason is needed is not in doing something, but in stopping someone from doing something. Most everything that is rightfully illegal has a justification for not doing so. I can't legally kill someone because that causes their life to end. That is the justification of prohibiting murder. I can't drive 75 mph in a school zone because I'll endanger children. That is the justification for speed limits (along with some environmental concerns). I don't, however, need a justification to watch midget BDSM porn. I can do it because there's no good reason for me not to be able to do it.
Is it possible that the private sector has realized it needs to stop leaning on the judicial branch of the government as a crutch? This proposal at least seems better than their response to extort settlements from people in courts, so that's a step in the right direction.
Both ISPs and big content are still relying on the government, and the settlement letter thing seems to be dying out due to judges with a sense of due process. Suing individuals wasn't going to be a profit stream or a deterrent.
In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it.
Not rightfully. Taxpayers have paid for more than the networks we have, and that's not even counting the rents made through blocking competition
Who's saying they are entitled? If I can do something, there needs to be a justification in why I shouldn't do that. Big Content isn't inherently entitled to stop me. The only purpose that copyright laws can exist for is to benefit the public by fostering the creation of more creative works. Copyright has utterly failed in that respect, so copyright laws are unjust.
Slashdot Mirror
I think encouraging the development of said formulas is a bigger concern than disclosure. That said, it doesn't appear that patents have worked well for either or those goals.
Allegedly 42 for just the kernel just from MS.
I think you mean 'Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers'
Somebody tell me this is a joke. This is in line with the Robot Chicken sketches where Hungry Hungry Hippos and Chutes and Ladders were made into films.
I suspect that is the case as well. That's why I feel we should call them on their bullshit. If the problem really is what they say it is, there's a much better solution, so this isn't a valid justification.
I don't think I agree. He seems to want to use the same internet separated by software, while I want a physically separate network if there has to be any direct intercommunication, and in cases where there doesn't have to be, there shouldn't by any connection at all.
It sounds more like he wants to use the same cables, and try and wall it off via hardcore authentication. My solution is completely separate wires if communication is needed for a system, and no wires if direct communication isn't needed
"Core elements of our electric grid, of our financial, transportation and communications infrastructure would be obvious candidates. But we simply cannot leave that core infrastructure on which the life and death of Americans depends without better security."
Here's an idea, if a service being infiltrated can result in deaths, DON'T CONNECT IT TO THE FUCKING INTERNET
They have taken to DRM fairly quickly, but I don't think frivlous lawsuits really count as a technological advances. But as I said, the record labels are fighting Google's services themselves. Kazaa and the RIAA are on the same side of this issue in being anti-innovator.
Actually, the big labels are opposing 'music lockers', and they aren't the targets of this lawsuit. Nailing the music industry for patent infringement is difficult, given that they've resisted just about every relevant technological advance in the last century.
Everyone knows that the internet is for porn
It depends upon how you interpret copyright, mostly depending on whether you see copyright as a pragmatic tool or as an author's natural right. In the US, it's an agreement in which the public cedes a bit of liberty regarding copying to authors in hopes that giving authors this power results in more works being authored, putting the US deep within the 'pragmatic tool' group. Absent a voluntary international agreement for recognizing copyright of other countries, the citizens of another country have not taken part of that deal, so they have no obligations to not copy works of US authors.
Where a lot of the concern lies IMO is that much of the agreements that have been signed regarding copyright have strings attached, which makes calling them 'voluntary' questionable. If we see free trade as the norm, and restricted trade as a punishment, then Western nations are implicitly and sometimes explicitly threatening punishment for not doing something they have no obligation to do. That is imperialism/bullying/etc., and cannot be just.
or, y'know, the US could just not be dicks about this kind of thing.
We wear cowboy hats?
I'm a native speaker, and that's how I read it at first.
You missed a perfect opportunity for a good pun by not opting for "dam(n) you Hoover" or even "Hoover sucks"
It seems to be used in place of money for bail. The kid is free to stay in jail (or wherever they are keeping him), so it's not seizing of property any more than other bail is.
The Catholic Church did have some similarities, but they don't bode well for Big Content. The Church engaged in repressive censorship that is directly contrary to the principles of modern democracies. Big Content acting like an ancient tyrant doesn't do much for justification.
No, copying wasn't limited before copyright (I'm counting the European printer monopolies whose primary purpose was censorship here) and copyright infringement is not theft.
Those are all cases of fraud. The kid who copies answers is falsely claiming those answers as answers that they came up with on their own. The teenager who is falsely claiming the authenticity of those $20 bills. The college kid getting kicked out school is again making a false claim of authorship. If the children in these cases were honest about the situation (such as Jimmy writing clearly on the paper he turned in that it was copied from Susie's paper), they become more humorous than troubling.
That's a horrible justification. The copyright system is explicitly bound by the constitution to exist ONLY for the purposes of a public benefit. If it doesn't provide a public benefit, than Congress is not entitled to pass such laws. Our current system doesn't (and there's not good evidence that any system we had ever did), but SCOTUS has given them a lot of leeway. Furthermore, copyright was not created to regulate individuals, so it's even more poorly suited for this situation. I don't respect unjust laws, and neither should you.
Murder and other criminal actions generally don't have the same kind of conditions attached to it as copyright law. As a general rule, killing is not okay, and things like self-defense are exceptions. However, uninhibited copying is normally okay, and copyright is the exception, which itself is only justified by a public benefit.
That's how freedom works. Where a reason is needed is not in doing something, but in stopping someone from doing something. Most everything that is rightfully illegal has a justification for not doing so. I can't legally kill someone because that causes their life to end. That is the justification of prohibiting murder. I can't drive 75 mph in a school zone because I'll endanger children. That is the justification for speed limits (along with some environmental concerns). I don't, however, need a justification to watch midget BDSM porn. I can do it because there's no good reason for me not to be able to do it.
Both ISPs and big content are still relying on the government, and the settlement letter thing seems to be dying out due to judges with a sense of due process. Suing individuals wasn't going to be a profit stream or a deterrent.
Not rightfully. Taxpayers have paid for more than the networks we have, and that's not even counting the rents made through blocking competition
Who's saying they are entitled? If I can do something, there needs to be a justification in why I shouldn't do that. Big Content isn't inherently entitled to stop me. The only purpose that copyright laws can exist for is to benefit the public by fostering the creation of more creative works. Copyright has utterly failed in that respect, so copyright laws are unjust.
I think arming an angry mob to beat the top execs for the involved companies to death would be more cost effective.
It's a good bit closer when both of those private businesses have government backed monopolies in their respective fields.