I believe "prior art" is something either already patented or already used as in integral part of something patented or in the public domain. Just because they've been researching it (probably concurrent with Walid, actually) doesn't make it prior art. Their research wouldn't make it prior art even if they'd been researching first, so long as they never did anything with it. And it seems they didn't, until now.
Above, Rep. Boucher refers to Jody as a "he," not a she.:) Also, Rep. Boucher obviously knows that the online community is one worth standing up for. But this is one way to demonstrate the power that community has. A representative from Virginia, in the space of a few hours, getting a pledge of support from people of all 50 states is a pretty incredible prospect. Talk about grassroots democracy-- demonstrate here that a representative in any state can post his views online, gather a group of like-minded individuals, and send them off to gather their like-minded friends so that there are people in every state lobbying their local representatives. Behold, the power of the Internet.
This commentary (commentary not investigative article) makes it obvious how absurd 1. how low people/corporations/cmdrtaco will sink when money and power are at stake and 2. how seriously we seem to take this issue when it's been around for years. It's making fun of the problem, yes, but it's not denying that there's a problem. Just because people have been doing this for years doesn't make it any less of an issue. It may be making fun of the "political ramifications that will doom us all" attitude, but it's certainly not hiding the fact that the corrupted system exists.
On a tangent, or parallel, really: just because it's political satire doesn't mean it's not political.
...not only because of the recent failures, but because there's a possible deadline in sight. Early 2014 is the most ideal date in sight to launch a manned mission to the red planet, as reported today at BBC News, years ago in an article from Space Online, and many places in between.
The basic idea is that a manned mission launched in 2014 would have the built-in safety feature of an easy slingshot return, which (if you're in a crippled ship) could make a big difference when it's the life of astronauts and not just their equipment at stake. If NASA can gather some reliable information in the meantime, they might just have a shot of making the deadline. It's probably too late already, considering how much time these things take (especially considering how much time these things take NASA)...but it's a hell of an opportunity to just dismiss.
I have one question for you though? Would you want your kids to be reading over someones shoulders as the personal is methods of animal sacrifice, human sacrefice, or canabalism? All of thos still exist today to some extent.
It depends. Is he doing a project for school on cults or canabalistic tribes encountered by colonists? Did he ask me why there are kids in his class who aren't allowed to read Harry Potter? No, I don't want my kids exposed to violence, to pornography, to drugs and to all sorts of things. But I don't want you to decide for me which things those are. Maybe you'll decide he shouldn't know about human sacrifice or cannibalism (as you suggested) and won't be able to get material to do a research project for school on those things. I did a project when I was in Jr. High that I remember well. It was on the holocaust. There were photos of nudity, extreme violence, and people being cannibalized and used for parts; their hair woven into cloth, their fat made into soap, their skin stretched into lampshades. Would you have a law passed that bans all nude photos, restricts all references to violence and the mistreatment of humans, and so forth so I could not have learned what I did by doing that project?
It's obvious that you don't think that religion is irrelevant, but you seem to be missing my point: if you have different religious, social, ethical, moral whatever values, you have a right to teach them to your kids. Not to mine. If I wanted to be able to expose my kids to pornography, to teach him how to kill a person with his bare hands, that homosexuality is acceptable or that it isn't, or that I believe in Mohammed instead of Jesus, I should have the right to. Just because you think something is wrong for children doesn't mean that there has to be a blanket law. You worry about your own children. Once you start worrying about mine, too, you have to start worrying about whether I'm going to enforce one of my beliefs on you. Once we start making blanket laws about morality and applying them to everyone, it has the potential to get majorly out of hand. A slippery slope.
No, I don't forget. I work for the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data and I have heard and seen things that make me want to cry for people's ignorance, stupidity, and need to control others. Before I started to work here, I had much firmer views in terms of censorship and the means I considered necessary to protect children. (I also didn't realise how much "reverse" domestic abuse goes on, either, you're right-- and here's a page I put up about that last year.)
I have heard too many people who are in charge of their local legislation demand restrictions that I disagree with to be willing to even consider a federal set of standards. Or even a federal rule that can be interpreted more loosely, community by community.
You would (I hope) be shocked by some of the things that communities will do to rationalise their opinions. They know that they disapprove of something, and so they find a way or a reason or a loophole that will allow them to make that thing illegal in their small area. People didn't come to America originally to advocate religious freedom; they came to a new world to practice their own religion and teach it to their children without interference. The origional colonies were incredibly segregated by religious beliefs. This this is irrelevant? You're wrong. The U.S. today continues to be a fractious bag of different religious, moral, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and everyone seems to think that having the right to their beliefs means that everyone else has to respect those specific beliefs by not making you face any others. If you want the right to choose for yourself, you have to give that right to others, too.
The media is very slanted, this is very true. You can't always get all the "truth" you want, but there is very little information that is actually restricted. (Though I agree that too much of it is avoided and more of it is forcibly promoted.) These things, though, usually come because you're listening to a slanted source (and all sources are slanted, just different directions and for different reasons.) If you want to go out and find information, you should be able to. You are able to if you put some effort into it. For the time being. Let us each make as informed a decision as we are capable of, and leave it at that. Let me restrict my own kids-- you and your morals, you stay away from them.
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about.
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
People seem to have picked boycotting as a reaction simply because it's the first thing that jumps at them-- Someone's selling something and we don't like their policies! Stop buying their stuff! Unfortunately, the RIAA is too far-reaching and the group they've actively offended is too small and specific for this to be the most effective form of protest. Since the RIAA is already of the opinion that these people don't pay for their music, a sharp decrease in sales is something that would jsut fuel their fire... if there even was a sharp decrease in sales. As is, a boycott would simply make a slight dip in their sales in the area that they're currently expecting one: giving them fuel for future reports where they can state that "as Napster became more high-profile, sales of RIAA music went down." Just what we need.
As has already been mentioned, Napster is promoting the idea of a "buycott," which is an excellent way of supporting their supporters (instead of punishing their adversaries) and demonstrating the buying power that Napster users have. A powerful statement, if it works. Even better, write to the heads of the record labels and TELL THEM that you're a music fan and you support Napster, that you buy music and would like them to support Napster, too. There are some more suggestions on Napster's site, and here are some addresses to write to:
BMG
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Fax: 212-930-4398
Strauss Zelnick
EMI Music Group
1290 6th Ave.
New York, NY 10104
Ken Berry
NMPA
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Fax: 212-242-4173
Edward Murphy
While I disapprove of the way the RIAA operates and most specifically how it "treats Napster," I don't think that a boycott of the RIAA would be productive. In fact, I think it would be counter productive. Napster seems to have the same take, and has organized a "buycott". Instead of not buying music (the thing the RIAA says that Napster users do anyhow), there should instead be an INCREASE in spending on artists who support Napster. This shows the RIAA how much money they stand to lose by offending Napster users, as opposed to losing them money (something they already think they're doing.) Napster has posted a list of groups that are supporting Napster. Go out and buy more music today!
Due to a backlash, ny New York Times reported on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers.". The article can probably still be found at the New York Times for a fee. The funniest promotional idea of theirs, though, can be found in the bathroom.
This is no longer the case. According to my New York Times on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers." I'm sure there's a copy available on the online NY Times archive, for a fee.:P ABC was facing a tremendous backlash, and changed their minds about this being a good idea. There may still be references available at the New York Times. The funniest promotional idea for ABC, however, can be found in the bathroom.
People have said that "if it's not legal, it'll just go underground." They've posted a picture of people selling pirated videotapes a block from the courthouse, to prove their point. I think that this photo proves an entirely different point.
My family lives near where that photo was taken. A huge percentage of those pirated videotapes are copies of videos made from tapes made by people sitting in a theatre with a camcorder. The rest of them are copies so distorted it's fairly impossible to discern a picture. Either way, I'd much rather pay $4 at a blockbuster to rent (and then copy) the tape myself than $8 to buy a copy on the street when I have to sit 6" from my screen to make out what's going on in the movie, while listening to the person sitting next to the guy with the camcorder crunch his popcorn louder than the actual soundtrack of the movie.
Legalizing stuff like DeCSS will make a huge difference. You won't have to go underground, and that makes it acceptable, unpunishable, and mainstream... it means that dvd rippers with DeCSS and the like will be sold in stores for the average joe, and consumer reports will help him comparison shop. It means everyone has access, not just those people who look to the underground.
Perhaps rephrasing would help. On the Jupiter Communications website it says that Napster users have a higher increase in spending than other online music fans. That is, other people who have apporximately the same technical capability and just don't use Napster. That is to say, not only do online music users in general buy more music than they did before, Napster users buy more music than before half again as often as other online music users. They have a greater increase in spending. There can be very little dispute here as to a causal relationship.
People are saying that just because Napster users buy more music doesn't imply causation. This is true, however... The study didn't just measure the current level of spending; it measured an increase in spending since starting to use Napster. At the Jupiter Communications website, you can see that Napsters users have increased their spending more than other online music fans. This is a very important distinction, because it does imply causation.
In addition, I must say that I personally use Napster, and I certainly buy more music than I did before. I'm exposed to more groups that I wouldnt' have heard of, and I'm much more likely to hear a song or two and like it, then go out and buy the album. I have no CD burner at home, and I'd like to be able to listen to the music on my discman and in my car, not just when I'm in the same room as my computer; and anyway, it's much easier to use for sampling and exploring than it would be if I was trying to download entire albums. And I'm willing to bet that sales near colleges have gone down because of CDNow and other such services that are cheaper and easier to get good music from than most music stores that take advantage of college towns.
In recent times, companies that have been cracked or have clients that have been cracked have lashed out at the most easily available target. Usually this means that some poor service provider or host service somewhere has to take the heat for "letting" someone misuse their services. Like suing someone (especially a service provider or software developer) for not having tight enough security (it's way too easy to find recent examples of this.) If nothing else, maybe insurance for being cracked will pacify the attacked, so there won't be as many silly lawsuits.
Unless they crack their own site, collect the insurance, and then sue their tech people for not being good enough to prevent their attack. That'd definately be silly.
We all know that the U.S. government wiretaps. This article isn't about whether or not that is right. Wiretapping is normal, and there are, on occassion, real reasons why wiretapping is the best way to go about solving a problem or answering a question. I know-- as part of my job I analyze FBI data. It would be foolish to assume that ALL governments don't have some form of surveilance in place to check up on those aspects of their citizens' lives that warrent it. The Japanese constitution, however, prohibits the Japanese government from any form of wiretapping. (Not to say that all governments always stick to their constitutions -or equivalents-, but...) That the FBI feels compelled to say, "we don't believe you, we don't trust you!" to the Japanese government is perhaps excessive, but well within the realm of normal FBI activity.
In the Techserver article it is stated that the FBI is asking for assurances (asking for assurances -- they're not allowed to actually interfere with international issues.) that U.S. facilities handle U.S. telcom traffic. Here's the real issue: if this starts becoming a standard, it has cascading implications for the involvement of the U.S. in the global telcom industry. How can we participate in what is by nature a global entity when we're supposed to draw firm and distinct lines between "us" and "them?"
After expounding on all of the problems that can come with extended computer use at a young age, the article states, "Unfortunately, America's parents are also sold on the benefits of computers." The important distinction here is the difference between the ideas that (A) computers are inherently good for children (in and of themselves) and that (B) computer literacy is good for children.
Computers can aid in the learning process [I'm talking an educational environment here; let's leave off for a minute the value of computer training ten more years down the road, when these kids are entering the workforce] just as blackboards, books, libraries, and glue can-- more so, as they can be more powerful and flexible tools. Giving a blackboard to someone who doesn't know how to write isn't useful. Sitting a child down to browse the web isn't educational, not in the way that public schools are supposed to be. Teach a child how to use a graphing program, though, and perhaps (s)he will understand math a bit better. Show a child how to find britannica.com and perhaps he will benefit even when he is miles from a library.
Computers aren't inherently good or inherently evil, though a lot of people want to make them out to be. They're (most of them) not built for small hands and short bodies, and adult keyboards can do bad things to kids fingers and postures. Playing computer games instead of socializing is just as bad (worse) for children socially and emotionally as it is for adolescents and adults. But teaching kids how to use these tools to their educational advantage would be immensely helpful in schools. It's a shame that few schools have properly implemented the technology.
Microsoft makes no attempt to hide the fact that this grassroots campaign is run within and composed entirely of people related to Microsoft. I quote: "The FIN is open to all Microsoft customers, shareholders, employees, alumni, and partners. Participation is voluntary." Why was there any question? People should more closely read the articles.:P
I am continuously frustrated that people's general perception seems to be that science and art, spirituality, and so forth are divided by an uncrossable schism. People feel the need to pit science against spirituality; logic against intuition. It is a rare thing that people accept the idea that these are different ways of approaching the same reality. As a dreamer and artist as well as a respected scientist, what do you say to people who doubt that scientists can be spiritual and artistic people?
It doesn't bother me that he WROTE the software, just that he thinks he is the voice of ethics to such an extent that he can decide whose proposed use of the software is moral enough to allow them to download it. I'm sure that his writing and distributing the software entitles him to distribute it however he'd like, but it bothers me that he thinks he can be the Morality Monitor.
It bothers me quite a bit that these people have decided that they know who can and should use this software. You can only get it if they want to give it to you, but they call it freeware-- I wonder what their policy is on other people copying and distributing this software? Fun that someone has decided it's at their discretion who has the right to violate someone's privacy and who doesn't.
"closed" media tend to hire better column writers, have better distrubition channels, better access to people involved in the news (through on spot reporting and interviews), better overall professionalism, etc., and, IMHO, produce a better quality product that I'm willing to *buy*.
Excellent point, but who's to say "closed" media will be the only ones when some open media take off a bit more? The vast majority of people in the US who bother at all with the news do so via the TV; even CNN Headline News spends only 3 minutes on headlining stories. News reported online is often more up-to-the-minute and often more complex in its detail (links make that very easy to accomplish.) Many people whose primary sources of news are tv broadcasts are turning to the web instead or in addition, and many people who read the papers are turning the the web to augment their daily intake, or to get more depth. The proliferation of news sources makes for a market where writing quality is held in high regard (the Economist, the Sunday New York Times and Wired should continue to do well, but watch out USA Today!) and so is instant gratification-- immediate and accurate reporting (Reuters, CNN, and BBC online should do very well, especially since they add more depth than your average radio or television 10 second news flash.) Open media is changing the nature of the market, not replacing it. Closed media will be in a different sort of demand.
The real issue at stake here is whether you can use (as a domain name, primarily, but who knows how this will translate-- perhaps as the title of a site, or just ON your site) a trademark that doesn't belong to you. So many common names and acronyms and phrases are trademarked that this could have tremendous implications. I don't know why they were accused of cybersquatting, unless someone doesn't understand what cybersquatting is. "It's not a cybersquatting case at all," Davis said. "It simply presents a question: Can you use a trademark as a domain name for the purpose of creating a parody?" The "for the purpose of creating a parody" part is kind of irrelevant, unless we're talking slander-- and that's an entirely separate issue, especially since parody is a fair use exemption to copyright law, as has been pointed out here already. And another issue-- what happens when more than one organization has a similar or identical name (NASA and NASA, or the space people and the Native American Student Association, for instance) and one wants a domain that the other has (the space people now decide that they want all domains incorporating NASA into them, but find that the students already use one or two of them, for instance). They're equally entitled, despite the fact that one owns the trademark and the other doesn't. Does that mean that the students aren't entitled to a domain with their name in it? That they should change the name of their organization? I know that there was a case recently where a kid nicknamed Pokey was being sued for his domain by the Gumby people... this is the same bad idea. This trademark/domain name stuff was discussed in part earlier in an article on Slashdot.
Since the ideas of intellectual property, copyright law, and the U.S. patent system first came about, a lot has changed. Methodological concepts have become as valuable as machine designs once were-- the design for a new type of cog or a better steam engine was conceptual, but it had specific mechanical specs. Concepts such as (for instance) one-click shopping are also conceptual, but the applications are much more varied due to the very nature of the medium in which they're applicable. You don't need to buy the parts and weld and build and test and hand your sponsors a lump of metal before going into mass produciton; mass production is cutting and pasting, or copying, or making available for download. You can try more things. One of the most obvious results of this is that new technologies mutate and evolve at a much faster rate. Ten years ago, hyperlinking was patented by IBM, but today it's an integral part of an entire breed of technologies. This kind of proliferation would not have been possible had that patent been enforced. The original concept of the patent was supposed to be a limited right that would create an incentive for authors to produce, and that "after a short interval," as Justice Joseph Story put it, what was produced would pass to the "full possession and enjoyment" of the public "without restraint." Not a restriction on proliferating or elaborating on the idea, but incentive to spread the idea in the first place.
Another result of this is the fact that the "thing" that is being protected has become an idea, not actually a "thing" at all. At most tangible, it is a process or method; at least tangible it might be innovative concepts for which the originator should not go unrecognized. Copyright is no longer restricted to "maps, charts and books." It reaches anything "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." It no longer regulates only publishers; it reaches anyone who makes a "copy."...and it is also beginning to reach copies that are not "fixed in a tangible medium;" take, for instance, the recently e-published-only novels and e-released-only albums; though they might not be fixed in a tangible medium, they still seem to be suceptible to copyright laws.
Perhaps the IP laws, copyright laws, and patent system need an overhaul. Well, certainly they need an overhaul. The emphasis needs to be returned to innovation and progress, and the periods of protection need to be shortened. A serious dialogue is a good start. Getting the government to change things takes a long time. What can we do in the mean time?
If web use was an option, it'd cut down on lines because some people could use it. Especially if people could use this to submit forms (tax, license applications of various kinds, and so forth) that they currently need to stand in queues to fill out. Further information (researching your own tax status and other personal records) probably shouldn't be available online for security reasons. While filling out forms online might me more suceptible to tampering or invasion of privacy than filling them out in a government office, those people who are concerned can always go to an office and fill out the forms in person. Web use could be an option.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe "prior art" is something either already patented or already used as in integral part of something patented or in the public domain. Just because they've been researching it (probably concurrent with Walid, actually) doesn't make it prior art. Their research wouldn't make it prior art even if they'd been researching first, so long as they never did anything with it. And it seems they didn't, until now.
Above, Rep. Boucher refers to Jody as a "he," not a she. :) Also, Rep. Boucher obviously knows that the online community is one worth standing up for. But this is one way to demonstrate the power that community has. A representative from Virginia, in the space of a few hours, getting a pledge of support from people of all 50 states is a pretty incredible prospect. Talk about grassroots democracy-- demonstrate here that a representative in any state can post his views online, gather a group of like-minded individuals, and send them off to gather their like-minded friends so that there are people in every state lobbying their local representatives. Behold, the power of the Internet.
This commentary (commentary not investigative article) makes it obvious how absurd 1. how low people/corporations/cmdrtaco will sink when money and power are at stake and 2. how seriously we seem to take this issue when it's been around for years. It's making fun of the problem, yes, but it's not denying that there's a problem. Just because people have been doing this for years doesn't make it any less of an issue. It may be making fun of the "political ramifications that will doom us all" attitude, but it's certainly not hiding the fact that the corrupted system exists.
On a tangent, or parallel, really: just because it's political satire doesn't mean it's not political.
...not only because of the recent failures, but because there's a possible deadline in sight. Early 2014 is the most ideal date in sight to launch a manned mission to the red planet, as reported today at BBC News, years ago in an article from Space Online, and many places in between.
...but it's a hell of an opportunity to just dismiss.
The basic idea is that a manned mission launched in 2014 would have the built-in safety feature of an easy slingshot return, which (if you're in a crippled ship) could make a big difference when it's the life of astronauts and not just their equipment at stake. If NASA can gather some reliable information in the meantime, they might just have a shot of making the deadline. It's probably too late already, considering how much time these things take (especially considering how much time these things take NASA)
I have one question for you though? Would you want your kids to be reading over someones shoulders as the personal is methods of animal sacrifice, human sacrefice, or canabalism? All of thos still exist today to some extent.
It depends. Is he doing a project for school on cults or canabalistic tribes encountered by colonists? Did he ask me why there are kids in his class who aren't allowed to read Harry Potter? No, I don't want my kids exposed to violence, to pornography, to drugs and to all sorts of things. But I don't want you to decide for me which things those are. Maybe you'll decide he shouldn't know about human sacrifice or cannibalism (as you suggested) and won't be able to get material to do a research project for school on those things. I did a project when I was in Jr. High that I remember well. It was on the holocaust. There were photos of nudity, extreme violence, and people being cannibalized and used for parts; their hair woven into cloth, their fat made into soap, their skin stretched into lampshades. Would you have a law passed that bans all nude photos, restricts all references to violence and the mistreatment of humans, and so forth so I could not have learned what I did by doing that project?
It's obvious that you don't think that religion is irrelevant, but you seem to be missing my point: if you have different religious, social, ethical, moral whatever values, you have a right to teach them to your kids. Not to mine. If I wanted to be able to expose my kids to pornography, to teach him how to kill a person with his bare hands, that homosexuality is acceptable or that it isn't, or that I believe in Mohammed instead of Jesus, I should have the right to. Just because you think something is wrong for children doesn't mean that there has to be a blanket law. You worry about your own children. Once you start worrying about mine, too, you have to start worrying about whether I'm going to enforce one of my beliefs on you. Once we start making blanket laws about morality and applying them to everyone, it has the potential to get majorly out of hand. A slippery slope.
No, I don't forget. I work for the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data and I have heard and seen things that make me want to cry for people's ignorance, stupidity, and need to control others. Before I started to work here, I had much firmer views in terms of censorship and the means I considered necessary to protect children. (I also didn't realise how much "reverse" domestic abuse goes on, either, you're right-- and here's a page I put up about that last year.)
I have heard too many people who are in charge of their local legislation demand restrictions that I disagree with to be willing to even consider a federal set of standards. Or even a federal rule that can be interpreted more loosely, community by community.
You would (I hope) be shocked by some of the things that communities will do to rationalise their opinions. They know that they disapprove of something, and so they find a way or a reason or a loophole that will allow them to make that thing illegal in their small area. People didn't come to America originally to advocate religious freedom; they came to a new world to practice their own religion and teach it to their children without interference. The origional colonies were incredibly segregated by religious beliefs. This this is irrelevant? You're wrong. The U.S. today continues to be a fractious bag of different religious, moral, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and everyone seems to think that having the right to their beliefs means that everyone else has to respect those specific beliefs by not making you face any others. If you want the right to choose for yourself, you have to give that right to others, too.
The media is very slanted, this is very true. You can't always get all the "truth" you want, but there is very little information that is actually restricted. (Though I agree that too much of it is avoided and more of it is forcibly promoted.) These things, though, usually come because you're listening to a slanted source (and all sources are slanted, just different directions and for different reasons.) If you want to go out and find information, you should be able to. You are able to if you put some effort into it. For the time being. Let us each make as informed a decision as we are capable of, and leave it at that. Let me restrict my own kids-- you and your morals, you stay away from them.
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about.
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
People seem to have picked boycotting as a reaction simply because it's the first thing that jumps at them-- Someone's selling something and we don't like their policies! Stop buying their stuff! Unfortunately, the RIAA is too far-reaching and the group they've actively offended is too small and specific for this to be the most effective form of protest. Since the RIAA is already of the opinion that these people don't pay for their music, a sharp decrease in sales is something that would jsut fuel their fire... if there even was a sharp decrease in sales. As is, a boycott would simply make a slight dip in their sales in the area that they're currently expecting one: giving them fuel for future reports where they can state that "as Napster became more high-profile, sales of RIAA music went down." Just what we need.
As has already been mentioned, Napster is promoting the idea of a "buycott," which is an excellent way of supporting their supporters (instead of punishing their adversaries) and demonstrating the buying power that Napster users have. A powerful statement, if it works. Even better, write to the heads of the record labels and TELL THEM that you're a music fan and you support Napster, that you buy music and would like them to support Napster, too. There are some more suggestions on Napster's site, and here are some addresses to write to:
BMG
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Fax: 212-930-4398
Strauss Zelnick
EMI Music Group
1290 6th Ave.
New York, NY 10104
Ken Berry
NMPA
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Fax: 212-242-4173
Edward Murphy
RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Fax: 202-775-7253
Hilary Rosen
Sony Music Entertainment
550 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10022
Fax: 212-833-4583
Tommy Mottola
Michele Anthony
Time Warner
75 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10019
Fax: 212-275-3839
Gerald Levin
Universal Music Group
70 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
Doug Morris
While I disapprove of the way the RIAA operates and most specifically how it "treats Napster," I don't think that a boycott of the RIAA would be productive. In fact, I think it would be counter productive. Napster seems to have the same take, and has organized a "buycott". Instead of not buying music (the thing the RIAA says that Napster users do anyhow), there should instead be an INCREASE in spending on artists who support Napster. This shows the RIAA how much money they stand to lose by offending Napster users, as opposed to losing them money (something they already think they're doing.) Napster has posted a list of groups that are supporting Napster. Go out and buy more music today!
Due to a backlash, ny New York Times reported on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers.". The article can probably still be found at the New York Times for a fee. The funniest promotional idea of theirs, though, can be found in the bathroom.
This is no longer the case. According to my New York Times on the 22nd, "ABC has backed away from a controversial plan to use sitcom stars like Norm MacDonald to promote its fall lineup by leaving taped messages on the home answering machines of viewers." I'm sure there's a copy available on the online NY Times archive, for a fee. :P ABC was facing a tremendous backlash, and changed their minds about this being a good idea. There may still be references available at the New York Times. The funniest promotional idea for ABC, however, can be found in the bathroom.
People have said that "if it's not legal, it'll just go underground." They've posted a picture of people selling pirated videotapes a block from the courthouse, to prove their point. I think that this photo proves an entirely different point.
My family lives near where that photo was taken. A huge percentage of those pirated videotapes are copies of videos made from tapes made by people sitting in a theatre with a camcorder. The rest of them are copies so distorted it's fairly impossible to discern a picture. Either way, I'd much rather pay $4 at a blockbuster to rent (and then copy) the tape myself than $8 to buy a copy on the street when I have to sit 6" from my screen to make out what's going on in the movie, while listening to the person sitting next to the guy with the camcorder crunch his popcorn louder than the actual soundtrack of the movie.
Legalizing stuff like DeCSS will make a huge difference. You won't have to go underground, and that makes it acceptable, unpunishable, and mainstream... it means that dvd rippers with DeCSS and the like will be sold in stores for the average joe, and consumer reports will help him comparison shop. It means everyone has access, not just those people who look to the underground.
Perhaps rephrasing would help. On the Jupiter Communications website it says that Napster users have a higher increase in spending than other online music fans. That is, other people who have apporximately the same technical capability and just don't use Napster. That is to say, not only do online music users in general buy more music than they did before, Napster users buy more music than before half again as often as other online music users. They have a greater increase in spending. There can be very little dispute here as to a causal relationship.
People are saying that just because Napster users buy more music doesn't imply causation. This is true, however... The study didn't just measure the current level of spending; it measured an increase in spending since starting to use Napster. At the Jupiter Communications website, you can see that Napsters users have increased their spending more than other online music fans. This is a very important distinction, because it does imply causation.
In addition, I must say that I personally use Napster, and I certainly buy more music than I did before. I'm exposed to more groups that I wouldnt' have heard of, and I'm much more likely to hear a song or two and like it, then go out and buy the album. I have no CD burner at home, and I'd like to be able to listen to the music on my discman and in my car, not just when I'm in the same room as my computer; and anyway, it's much easier to use for sampling and exploring than it would be if I was trying to download entire albums. And I'm willing to bet that sales near colleges have gone down because of CDNow and other such services that are cheaper and easier to get good music from than most music stores that take advantage of college towns.
In recent times, companies that have been cracked or have clients that have been cracked have lashed out at the most easily available target. Usually this means that some poor service provider or host service somewhere has to take the heat for "letting" someone misuse their services. Like suing someone (especially a service provider or software developer) for not having tight enough security (it's way too easy to find recent examples of this.) If nothing else, maybe insurance for being cracked will pacify the attacked, so there won't be as many silly lawsuits.
Unless they crack their own site, collect the insurance, and then sue their tech people for not being good enough to prevent their attack. That'd definately be silly.
We all know that the U.S. government wiretaps. This article isn't about whether or not that is right. Wiretapping is normal, and there are, on occassion, real reasons why wiretapping is the best way to go about solving a problem or answering a question. I know-- as part of my job I analyze FBI data. It would be foolish to assume that ALL governments don't have some form of surveilance in place to check up on those aspects of their citizens' lives that warrent it. The Japanese constitution, however, prohibits the Japanese government from any form of wiretapping. (Not to say that all governments always stick to their constitutions -or equivalents-, but...) That the FBI feels compelled to say, "we don't believe you, we don't trust you!" to the Japanese government is perhaps excessive, but well within the realm of normal FBI activity.
In the Techserver article it is stated that the FBI is asking for assurances (asking for assurances -- they're not allowed to actually interfere with international issues.) that U.S. facilities handle U.S. telcom traffic. Here's the real issue: if this starts becoming a standard, it has cascading implications for the involvement of the U.S. in the global telcom industry. How can we participate in what is by nature a global entity when we're supposed to draw firm and distinct lines between "us" and "them?"
After expounding on all of the problems that can come with extended computer use at a young age, the article states, "Unfortunately, America's parents are also sold on the benefits of computers." The important distinction here is the difference between the ideas that (A) computers are inherently good for children (in and of themselves) and that (B) computer literacy is good for children.
Computers can aid in the learning process [I'm talking an educational environment here; let's leave off for a minute the value of computer training ten more years down the road, when these kids are entering the workforce] just as blackboards, books, libraries, and glue can-- more so, as they can be more powerful and flexible tools. Giving a blackboard to someone who doesn't know how to write isn't useful. Sitting a child down to browse the web isn't educational, not in the way that public schools are supposed to be. Teach a child how to use a graphing program, though, and perhaps (s)he will understand math a bit better. Show a child how to find britannica.com and perhaps he will benefit even when he is miles from a library.
Computers aren't inherently good or inherently evil, though a lot of people want to make them out to be. They're (most of them) not built for small hands and short bodies, and adult keyboards can do bad things to kids fingers and postures. Playing computer games instead of socializing is just as bad (worse) for children socially and emotionally as it is for adolescents and adults. But teaching kids how to use these tools to their educational advantage would be immensely helpful in schools. It's a shame that few schools have properly implemented the technology.
Microsoft makes no attempt to hide the fact that this grassroots campaign is run within and composed entirely of people related to Microsoft. I quote: :P
"The FIN is open to all Microsoft customers, shareholders, employees, alumni, and partners. Participation is voluntary."
Why was there any question? People should more closely read the articles.
I am continuously frustrated that people's general perception seems to be that science and art, spirituality, and so forth are divided by an uncrossable schism. People feel the need to pit science against spirituality; logic against intuition. It is a rare thing that people accept the idea that these are different ways of approaching the same reality. As a dreamer and artist as well as a respected scientist, what do you say to people who doubt that scientists can be spiritual and artistic people?
It doesn't bother me that he WROTE the software, just that he thinks he is the voice of ethics to such an extent that he can decide whose proposed use of the software is moral enough to allow them to download it. I'm sure that his writing and distributing the software entitles him to distribute it however he'd like, but it bothers me that he thinks he can be the Morality Monitor.
It bothers me quite a bit that these people have decided that they know who can and should use this software. You can only get it if they want to give it to you, but they call it freeware-- I wonder what their policy is on other people copying and distributing this software? Fun that someone has decided it's at their discretion who has the right to violate someone's privacy and who doesn't.
"closed" media tend to hire better column writers, have better distrubition channels, better access to people involved in the news (through on spot reporting and interviews), better overall professionalism, etc., and, IMHO, produce a better quality product that I'm willing to *buy*.
Excellent point, but who's to say "closed" media will be the only ones when some open media take off a bit more? The vast majority of people in the US who bother at all with the news do so via the TV; even CNN Headline News spends only 3 minutes on headlining stories. News reported online is often more up-to-the-minute and often more complex in its detail (links make that very easy to accomplish.) Many people whose primary sources of news are tv broadcasts are turning to the web instead or in addition, and many people who read the papers are turning the the web to augment their daily intake, or to get more depth.
The proliferation of news sources makes for a market where writing quality is held in high regard (the Economist, the Sunday New York Times and Wired should continue to do well, but watch out USA Today!) and so is instant gratification-- immediate and accurate reporting (Reuters, CNN, and BBC online should do very well, especially since they add more depth than your average radio or television 10 second news flash.) Open media is changing the nature of the market, not replacing it. Closed media will be in a different sort of demand.
The real issue at stake here is whether you can use (as a domain name, primarily, but who knows how this will translate-- perhaps as the title of a site, or just ON your site) a trademark that doesn't belong to you. So many common names and acronyms and phrases are trademarked that this could have tremendous implications.
I don't know why they were accused of cybersquatting, unless someone doesn't understand what cybersquatting is. "It's not a cybersquatting case at all," Davis said. "It simply presents a question: Can you use a trademark as a domain name for the purpose of creating a parody?" The "for the purpose of creating a parody" part is kind of irrelevant, unless we're talking slander-- and that's an entirely separate issue, especially since parody is a fair use exemption to copyright law, as has been pointed out here already.
And another issue-- what happens when more than one organization has a similar or identical name (NASA and NASA, or the space people and the Native American Student Association, for instance) and one wants a domain that the other has (the space people now decide that they want all domains incorporating NASA into them, but find that the students already use one or two of them, for instance). They're equally entitled, despite the fact that one owns the trademark and the other doesn't. Does that mean that the students aren't entitled to a domain with their name in it? That they should change the name of their organization? I know that there was a case recently where a kid nicknamed Pokey was being sued for his domain by the Gumby people... this is the same bad idea.
This trademark/domain name stuff was discussed in part earlier in an article on Slashdot.
Since the ideas of intellectual property, copyright law, and the U.S. patent system first came about, a lot has changed. Methodological concepts have become as valuable as machine designs once were-- the design for a new type of cog or a better steam engine was conceptual, but it had specific mechanical specs. Concepts such as (for instance) one-click shopping are also conceptual, but the applications are much more varied due to the very nature of the medium in which they're applicable. You don't need to buy the parts and weld and build and test and hand your sponsors a lump of metal before going into mass produciton; mass production is cutting and pasting, or copying, or making available for download. You can try more things. One of the most obvious results of this is that new technologies mutate and evolve at a much faster rate. Ten years ago, hyperlinking was patented by IBM, but today it's an integral part of an entire breed of technologies. This kind of proliferation would not have been possible had that patent been enforced. The original concept of the patent was supposed to be a limited right that would create an incentive for authors to produce, and that "after a short interval," as Justice Joseph Story put it, what was produced would pass to the "full possession and enjoyment" of the public "without restraint." Not a restriction on proliferating or elaborating on the idea, but incentive to spread the idea in the first place.
...and it is also beginning to reach copies that are not "fixed in a tangible medium;" take, for instance, the recently e-published-only novels and e-released-only albums; though they might not be fixed in a tangible medium, they still seem to be suceptible to copyright laws.
Another result of this is the fact that the "thing" that is being protected has become an idea, not actually a "thing" at all. At most tangible, it is a process or method; at least tangible it might be innovative concepts for which the originator should not go unrecognized. Copyright is no longer restricted to "maps, charts and books." It reaches anything "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." It no longer regulates only publishers; it reaches anyone who makes a "copy."
Perhaps the IP laws, copyright laws, and patent system need an overhaul. Well, certainly they need an overhaul. The emphasis needs to be returned to innovation and progress, and the periods of protection need to be shortened. A serious dialogue is a good start. Getting the government to change things takes a long time. What can we do in the mean time?
If web use was an option, it'd cut down on lines because some people could use it. Especially if people could use this to submit forms (tax, license applications of various kinds, and so forth) that they currently need to stand in queues to fill out. Further information (researching your own tax status and other personal records) probably shouldn't be available online for security reasons. While filling out forms online might me more suceptible to tampering or invasion of privacy than filling them out in a government office, those people who are concerned can always go to an office and fill out the forms in person. Web use could be an option.