Well, there are other laws against stealing cars, too, which I'm guessing makes them not salvage, even by the roadside.;)
But don't worry... we're on the same side here. I agree that "the shareholders might sue" is a lame excuse for ethically questionable and often nonsensical behavior on the part of corporations. I also agree that being able to take out questionable patents brings the whole patent system into question.
I think you had a good point up until your murder spree analogy. Murder is clearly illegal and immoral. Taking advantage of an overly vague and broad patent system is not illegal. Finally, the penalty for patent infringement is a civil penalty-- usually a cease and desist combined with some sort of monetary payment. Even so you can always infringe on this patent and hope a jury decides you have a point about how ridiculous the patent is.
You heard him say that? On the radio? And you've never heard of misinformation being used in wartime, so you automatically believed he was both sincere, truthful, and correct?:)
Nonetheless, I agree it's quite possible she misunderstood what she heard. Or that the person who said it was just blowing hot air and bravado. That happens too. Frankly, if I were her I'd be more worried about being killed by accident than deliberate malice on the part of U.S. forces.
The moral underpinnings of intellectual property rights are not the same as those of physical property rights (and what moral rights gird up those rights is a separate discussion and Locke would be as good a starting place as any).
If I rent, borrow, or buy a book you have written, I have taken possession of a physical item which is the product of your labor. But if I copy the text of that book onto blank paper that I've made, then it is my labor which has fixed the ideas expressed in your book into a new physical product. I can then give you back the original-- the product of your labors having been not at all diminished by my activity.
The question at that point becomes: what rights do you have to control me and my property (i.e. the book which is a copy of your book)? It seems to me that the moral notion of property rights in ideas is fundamentally at odds with the notion of property rights in physical things. At some point your attempts to control "your" ideas interfere with my attempts to control "my" physical property.
So what are solutions that might work? Eradicate Fair Use and first sale doctrines. Make it such that any purchase or rent of a creative work requires licensing or contractual obligation on my part to prevent me from sharing the contents of that work. In other words, EULAs on everything. Of course, this would destroy existing radio and television systems as there is no way to obtain contractual agreement from every listener or viewer. I don't see this as practical.
So what else? The system we have is okay. I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns with respect to the length of copyrights themselves... and I think being able to patent math is a bit off. The DMCA is wrong, of course, in that it criminalizes attempts to preserve Fair Use.
Or perhaps we grant permanent ownership rights in intellectual property, but accompany that with a compulsory licensing scheme. I read your book. I can write a sequel if I want, but for every $1 I make selling copies of the sequel, I owe you 50 cents. This would work the same way something like ASCAP/BMI works for public performance of musical works.
The term piracy is just too loaded-- no matter how common its usage may be it implies a criminal mindset and has connotations of pillaging or theft. Sharing, while it describes the act, also implies a legal and moral right to do that sharing-- a lot of the sharing going on is not Fair Use.
Why don't we stick with accurate legal terms straight out of the lawbooks? I propose "copyright infringement" as a reasonable alternative. It points out that the act is illegal or otherwise disallowed and focuses on that as the basis for discussion. This way we can keep the discussion of the morality of copyrights, 3rd party duplication and derivation, and other such matters separate from the legal questions.
Right now this debate is hugely clouded by the existing legal framework and the language used in its enforcement. The average American doesn't mind a little "piracy", but when questioned closely on this topic will probably have strongly held opinions that equate some level of "piracy" with theft-- which copyright infringment is not (theft, that is). If information, ideas, stories, visual expressions, etc, were rivalrous resources such that my use of them would prevent your use of them, then the word "theft" might be appropriate. But since this is not the case, words like "piracy" and "theft" serve only to cloud the issue.
BTW, Slashbot hero Lawrence Lessig uses the word "thief" in his book "The Future of Ideas" to describe someone who would engage in whole copying of said book-- proving that even top notch IP lawyers who are presumably on "our" side have internalized this dangerous notion that an idea or an expression can be owned while still being shared.
We are never going to resolve this issue (unless technocrats resolve it for us by conspiring to remove our right to Fair Use entirely) by tossing about loaded words. We need to divest the discussion of any moralizing whatsoever... unless you want to make the case that there is a moral basis for copyright (the Constitution merely mention promoting the Arts and Sciences, not some support for an inherent human right to idea ownership)-- which no one has done yet, except by taking the existing legal framework and describing it using loaded, moralistic words.
Limited number of write ops on memory cards? Please elaborate. I'm not trying to cast aspersion on your assertion, I'm just curious what you mean... especially since those things ain't the cheapest storage medium on the market.
Agh. CD-R(W). For those of us who have a lot of, uh, "data" those just won't do. I'm not going to try and back up my mp3 collection on CD-RW... at 30gbs and growing that's just not feasible. The organization alone is a nightmare. Not to mention the time involved in burning all those CDs.
I've just bought me some removable IDE trays and some additional IDE HDs like these here. What I want to know is: besides `cp -a` from a mounted NFS share or `scp -r` is there a good way to do backups for other systems on my LAN? Any dangers in doing those things? I know they aren't efficient (so I'll be checking out rsync) and that they aren't a snapshot per se... but anything else I should be aware of?
In the U.S. McDonald's would be committing fraud and violating food product labelling requirements if it sold tofu as though it were beef.
While it might be useful for Google to explain themselves and to be up-front about how they return search results, I don't think they are under any obligation to do so. Obviously if there were more than the three slim examples given by Finkelstein and the Xenu folks, then many of us might be concerned by this pattern and seek alternative search engines.
As it is, I can use Google with "Safe Search" off to find pr0n. Not exactly what I'd call censored. Heck, even the poor German citizens Finkelstein is worried won't be able to see a bunch of white power BS could probably see those links if they masqueraded as non-Germans for a bit.
You're right. We should probably skip calling it Linux altogether then, and just call it GNU. I don't know about you, but when I interact with my desk, I interact with the desk, not with the building material. When I interact with my computer, I interact with things like BASH, gcc, ls, GNOME, and whole host of other software (both GNU and not GNU), not with the kernel. Ergo, using your logic, I should call my system a GNU system. But I don't because that would be even more confusing to non-geeks than calling it GNU/Linux.
Which is especially true since you can download the Mozilla source yourself, set your compile options, and not have to build most of these extra features in at all. I mean, even the cited Phoenix browser relies on a functional build of Mozilla to compile, right?
Considering reuse was a possibility listed in the parent post, I thought I would ask "why plastic?" especially since it doesn't always hold up well to things like microwaving.
Instead of paper plates, why not actual wood? Instead of plastic plates, why not glass or ceramics? Glass is my favorite since it is essentially environmentally inert (once it is made)... and if you are washing by hand, very easy to see if you've got the whole thing clean.:)
To be fair, the original poster quoted a verse from Matthew, which is in the "new testament". Your copy of "Dear Dr. Laura" refers only to "old testament" verses. Even I know that the rules in the OT don't apply in the NT age, in fact, that's part of why "Dear Dr. Laura" was written.
Now, to present my side of this argument: Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was using a number of rhetorical devices which when taken in the context of the whole speech clearly indicate, not a rigid hierarchy of right and wrong, but that what is important for humans is that they simply trust in God. Sadly, some of those statements, when deprived of both context and the nuance of delivery, appear to be some new set of even stricter rules-- the very thing Jesus was arguing against!!
Says you. If you're paying for it, you should probably expect a hands-free slideshow feature. If you're not paying for it, why are you wasting time with a browser instead of using Usenet and a real graphics program?
And if you're doing one-handed web browsing at work, I think hiding the browser window is the least of your concerns.
Can you please point out what he said that qualifies as "best"? Most of the page you linked to is filled with whiny drivel from a guy whose opinion couldn't count less at this point.
Wow. So now, in addition to worrying about breaking the law, I have to worry about doing things that are clearly allowed by the law? You make it sound like the best course of action is to never take any action at all. Meanwhile, failing to exercise our legal rights is probably the best way to lose them altogether.
Who the hell modded this up to five? It's ridiculous. Things like titles, tables of contents, book reviews, book ratings, ISBNs, page counts, date of publication, etc etc are either Fair Use (i.e. criticism) or uncopyrightable facts.
Personally I see no point in such a database project unless it builds on public information like that produced by the Library of Congress.
I think you're missing the point because you're being definitionally restrictive. Information == ideas == stuff you think about. Information is a non-rivalous resource. If I tell you something, I don't have less information than I had before. Giving that information to you didn't necessarily cost me anything (except maybe some time). And unlike physical property, there is no way to secure information except to keep it secret. Once I give you some information, I can't take it back. Thus the natural state of information is free.
As you state, sometimes information needs to be formulated-- interesting theories need to be worked out, stories need to be written, buildings need blueprints, etc. This is why we have copyright and patent laws: to promote the creation of information. Because the information is naturally free, laws or social conventions are required to prevent people doing creative work from having others exploit the information without rewarding the effort put into the creation itself.
Slashdot Mirror
IDE is legacy hardware?
Well, there are other laws against stealing cars, too, which I'm guessing makes them not salvage, even by the roadside. ;)
But don't worry... we're on the same side here. I agree that "the shareholders might sue" is a lame excuse for ethically questionable and often nonsensical behavior on the part of corporations. I also agree that being able to take out questionable patents brings the whole patent system into question.
I think you had a good point up until your murder spree analogy. Murder is clearly illegal and immoral. Taking advantage of an overly vague and broad patent system is not illegal. Finally, the penalty for patent infringement is a civil penalty-- usually a cease and desist combined with some sort of monetary payment. Even so you can always infringe on this patent and hope a jury decides you have a point about how ridiculous the patent is.
You heard him say that? On the radio? And you've never heard of misinformation being used in wartime, so you automatically believed he was both sincere, truthful, and correct? :)
Nonetheless, I agree it's quite possible she misunderstood what she heard. Or that the person who said it was just blowing hot air and bravado. That happens too. Frankly, if I were her I'd be more worried about being killed by accident than deliberate malice on the part of U.S. forces.
The moral underpinnings of intellectual property rights are not the same as those of physical property rights (and what moral rights gird up those rights is a separate discussion and Locke would be as good a starting place as any).
If I rent, borrow, or buy a book you have written, I have taken possession of a physical item which is the product of your labor. But if I copy the text of that book onto blank paper that I've made, then it is my labor which has fixed the ideas expressed in your book into a new physical product. I can then give you back the original-- the product of your labors having been not at all diminished by my activity.
The question at that point becomes: what rights do you have to control me and my property (i.e. the book which is a copy of your book)? It seems to me that the moral notion of property rights in ideas is fundamentally at odds with the notion of property rights in physical things. At some point your attempts to control "your" ideas interfere with my attempts to control "my" physical property.
So what are solutions that might work? Eradicate Fair Use and first sale doctrines. Make it such that any purchase or rent of a creative work requires licensing or contractual obligation on my part to prevent me from sharing the contents of that work. In other words, EULAs on everything. Of course, this would destroy existing radio and television systems as there is no way to obtain contractual agreement from every listener or viewer. I don't see this as practical.
So what else? The system we have is okay. I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns with respect to the length of copyrights themselves... and I think being able to patent math is a bit off. The DMCA is wrong, of course, in that it criminalizes attempts to preserve Fair Use.
Or perhaps we grant permanent ownership rights in intellectual property, but accompany that with a compulsory licensing scheme. I read your book. I can write a sequel if I want, but for every $1 I make selling copies of the sequel, I owe you 50 cents. This would work the same way something like ASCAP/BMI works for public performance of musical works.
The term piracy is just too loaded-- no matter how common its usage may be it implies a criminal mindset and has connotations of pillaging or theft. Sharing, while it describes the act, also implies a legal and moral right to do that sharing-- a lot of the sharing going on is not Fair Use.
Why don't we stick with accurate legal terms straight out of the lawbooks? I propose "copyright infringement" as a reasonable alternative. It points out that the act is illegal or otherwise disallowed and focuses on that as the basis for discussion. This way we can keep the discussion of the morality of copyrights, 3rd party duplication and derivation, and other such matters separate from the legal questions.
Right now this debate is hugely clouded by the existing legal framework and the language used in its enforcement. The average American doesn't mind a little "piracy", but when questioned closely on this topic will probably have strongly held opinions that equate some level of "piracy" with theft-- which copyright infringment is not (theft, that is). If information, ideas, stories, visual expressions, etc, were rivalrous resources such that my use of them would prevent your use of them, then the word "theft" might be appropriate. But since this is not the case, words like "piracy" and "theft" serve only to cloud the issue.
BTW, Slashbot hero Lawrence Lessig uses the word "thief" in his book "The Future of Ideas" to describe someone who would engage in whole copying of said book-- proving that even top notch IP lawyers who are presumably on "our" side have internalized this dangerous notion that an idea or an expression can be owned while still being shared.
We are never going to resolve this issue (unless technocrats resolve it for us by conspiring to remove our right to Fair Use entirely) by tossing about loaded words. We need to divest the discussion of any moralizing whatsoever... unless you want to make the case that there is a moral basis for copyright (the Constitution merely mention promoting the Arts and Sciences, not some support for an inherent human right to idea ownership)-- which no one has done yet, except by taking the existing legal framework and describing it using loaded, moralistic words.
I don't know. Let's ask the U.S. Army what they think of Microsoft after the latest server hacking.
Limited number of write ops on memory cards? Please elaborate. I'm not trying to cast aspersion on your assertion, I'm just curious what you mean... especially since those things ain't the cheapest storage medium on the market.
Agh. CD-R(W). For those of us who have a lot of, uh, "data" those just won't do. I'm not going to try and back up my mp3 collection on CD-RW... at 30gbs and growing that's just not feasible. The organization alone is a nightmare. Not to mention the time involved in burning all those CDs.
I've just bought me some removable IDE trays and some additional IDE HDs like these here. What I want to know is: besides `cp -a` from a mounted NFS share or `scp -r` is there a good way to do backups for other systems on my LAN? Any dangers in doing those things? I know they aren't efficient (so I'll be checking out rsync) and that they aren't a snapshot per se... but anything else I should be aware of?
In the U.S. McDonald's would be committing fraud and violating food product labelling requirements if it sold tofu as though it were beef.
While it might be useful for Google to explain themselves and to be up-front about how they return search results, I don't think they are under any obligation to do so. Obviously if there were more than the three slim examples given by Finkelstein and the Xenu folks, then many of us might be concerned by this pattern and seek alternative search engines.
As it is, I can use Google with "Safe Search" off to find pr0n. Not exactly what I'd call censored. Heck, even the poor German citizens Finkelstein is worried won't be able to see a bunch of white power BS could probably see those links if they masqueraded as non-Germans for a bit.
You're right. We should probably skip calling it Linux altogether then, and just call it GNU. I don't know about you, but when I interact with my desk, I interact with the desk, not with the building material. When I interact with my computer, I interact with things like BASH, gcc, ls, GNOME, and whole host of other software (both GNU and not GNU), not with the kernel. Ergo, using your logic, I should call my system a GNU system. But I don't because that would be even more confusing to non-geeks than calling it GNU/Linux.
I honestly would vote libertarian if their candidates weren't usually total cooks.
Why not? maybe they'd cook some decent food and give it to the homeless or something.
Now for my part, I worry about the libertarians because a lot of them are kooks.
Off the market? Ha. The marriage market maybe...
Which is especially true since you can download the Mozilla source yourself, set your compile options, and not have to build most of these extra features in at all. I mean, even the cited Phoenix browser relies on a functional build of Mozilla to compile, right?
Considering reuse was a possibility listed in the parent post, I thought I would ask "why plastic?" especially since it doesn't always hold up well to things like microwaving.
Instead of paper plates, why not actual wood? Instead of plastic plates, why not glass or ceramics? Glass is my favorite since it is essentially environmentally inert (once it is made)... and if you are washing by hand, very easy to see if you've got the whole thing clean. :)
Fine, then why even bring her into the discussion?
To be fair, the original poster quoted a verse from Matthew, which is in the "new testament". Your copy of "Dear Dr. Laura" refers only to "old testament" verses. Even I know that the rules in the OT don't apply in the NT age, in fact, that's part of why "Dear Dr. Laura" was written.
Now, to present my side of this argument: Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was using a number of rhetorical devices which when taken in the context of the whole speech clearly indicate, not a rigid hierarchy of right and wrong, but that what is important for humans is that they simply trust in God. Sadly, some of those statements, when deprived of both context and the nuance of delivery, appear to be some new set of even stricter rules-- the very thing Jesus was arguing against!!
Jon Katz, is that you?
uh, duh... overclocking???? ;)
Says you. If you're paying for it, you should probably expect a hands-free slideshow feature. If you're not paying for it, why are you wasting time with a browser instead of using Usenet and a real graphics program?
And if you're doing one-handed web browsing at work, I think hiding the browser window is the least of your concerns.
Can you please point out what he said that qualifies as "best"? Most of the page you linked to is filled with whiny drivel from a guy whose opinion couldn't count less at this point.
Wow. So now, in addition to worrying about breaking the law, I have to worry about doing things that are clearly allowed by the law? You make it sound like the best course of action is to never take any action at all. Meanwhile, failing to exercise our legal rights is probably the best way to lose them altogether.
Who the hell modded this up to five? It's ridiculous. Things like titles, tables of contents, book reviews, book ratings, ISBNs, page counts, date of publication, etc etc are either Fair Use (i.e. criticism) or uncopyrightable facts.
Personally I see no point in such a database project unless it builds on public information like that produced by the Library of Congress.
I think you're missing the point because you're being definitionally restrictive. Information == ideas == stuff you think about. Information is a non-rivalous resource. If I tell you something, I don't have less information than I had before. Giving that information to you didn't necessarily cost me anything (except maybe some time). And unlike physical property, there is no way to secure information except to keep it secret. Once I give you some information, I can't take it back. Thus the natural state of information is free.
As you state, sometimes information needs to be formulated-- interesting theories need to be worked out, stories need to be written, buildings need blueprints, etc. This is why we have copyright and patent laws: to promote the creation of information. Because the information is naturally free, laws or social conventions are required to prevent people doing creative work from having others exploit the information without rewarding the effort put into the creation itself.