You know what's funny? The fact that that is not the story, that it has nothing to do with the story, and that the poster you replied to is absolutely correct. It's true that authors are victims, but they are victims in exactly the same way that the organization itself is a victim, and the rest of your comment is hogwash.
Leave it to Slashdot readers to find a story with a headline that says:
"Police raid Spanish copyright society in embezzlement case"
and change it to
"Spanish Copyright Society Raided For Embezzlement"
just because the latter is what they'd rather hear.
Besides lacking anything resembling the "driving principles" that you could say underlie the Wikileaks organization â" notice the Orlando leak basically boils down to "we don't like some state politicians so we will publicize sensitive private details about them" â" this site likely lacks the assurances of confidentiality that Wikileaks is able to make, both practical (secure handling protocols) and legal (based in Sweden, with unusually strong confidential-source protections), not to mention the maturity and organizational discipline to respect and protect that confidentiality.
Reasonable people may have widely differing opinions on Wikileaks, but I'd say anyone seriously considering dropping a bombshell of confidential information would be stupid to take it to these kids instead of Wikileaks. It's almost as if this is a distraction technique designed to make Wikileaks look good by comparison.
HOLY EMBARASSING LOGIC FAILURE, BATMAN!
Think about the previous poster's hypothetical; then think about your response; then ask yourself: "Why am I so freaking dumb?"
This has always been a bullshit argument offered up by people who are desperate to convince themselves (and others) that they're not stealing (which they are).
At best you've shown that it wouldn't be incredibly expensive for publishers to make journal articles available for free online; and that paying publishers for the services they provide wouldn't be necessary if only our entire university system were structured and administered in a completely different way.
You haven't even suggested a justification for forcing a private company to provide for free something it's not obligated to provide for free, and which it has significant investments sunk into developing, maintaining, and preserving the rights to. You haven't even made what would surely be your "easiest" argument: that somehow the fact that public funding is involved means that the public should be not just given access to, but actively served the product of the government funding, without limitation. You haven't apparently contemplated whether the type of free services you're discussing would actually increase the amount of government funding that would be required for any given project, or all projects in the aggregate. And you've only sketched the barest outline of how things could be done differently.
This is all well and good, but it's somewhat pie-in-the-sky and is not responsive to my own post, which merely pointed out that everything has to be paid for by somebody, and also that the above posters have not paid for the service they apparently feel entitled to.
What could come of your comments? Perhaps a compelling policy argument, or, instead, a promising business plan. But nowhere therein was there any kind of sound justification for simply ripping off online versions of scholarly works just because the researcher and his university received government grants to help pay for work product which you could read for free in a library.
Your "goddamned tax dollars" also paid for every public parking space in the city you live in, but you still have to feed the meter or pay a garage fee. It takes a horrifyingly oversimplified view of life to think that simply having contributed some fractional share towards paying for some aspect of something, you personally fully own all aspects of the result. Even if taxpayer funding was the only type of funding used (it wasn't) you'd still be paying access fees to some company that contracted with the government to try to recoup the government's own outlay by charging access fees.
Sorry if that makes u mad, bro.
And, my comment to the other guy wasn't a "stopped beating your wife yet" comment. He was openly suggesting that the price difference between online access and the cost of using a photocopier at a library you've already traveled to, where you've already located and pulled the book you need, merits ripping off the digital copy. Notwithstanding that fact it was a fairly ridiculous comparison to begin with.
So, because you don't feel like heading to the library to make that photocopy, you think you'd be justified in ripping off the digital copy that some company has made available online at its own expense?
Gee, sounds like a sucker's game to me. If that's the way you want to play, don't be surprised if the online publishers close up shop and tell you to hoof it to one of those awesome locations where you can get the information more or less for free, at your own expense. Because Lord knows nobody's obligated to start up a business to cater to your whims by providing services you're not willing to pay for.
What's that? Oh, you're just complaining about the price point? I suppose I should have noticed that from the start and disregarded your comment entirely.
The submitter blatantly rewrites the article to fit the typically mindless anti-authority prejudice that's rife among Slashdot readers.
He writes: "Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."
In fact, the article recommends that cops search the phones of PEOPLE THEY'RE ARRESTING to look for apps designed to transmit recordings to a remote location, as well as isolate the phone from radio signals to prevent someone remotely wiping it.
I certainly can't say I see the "irony" in cops not wanting every random criminal on the street being able to send videos of the cops who arrested him to all his buddies. And in any event, when you get arrested, you get searched.
Your opposition is also ill-conceived and will have no effect.
I'm not sure how to correct a world-view that is so hopelessly skewed as to equate Google and TPB for the reasons you state while conveniently ignoring minor details like one entity being a legitimate, useful service provided by a company that makes major efforts to comply with the law, while the other is just a website designed to be a haven for people to break the law.
Sucky world-view, devoid of logic. Typical on Slashdot.
HTH
Slashdot itself (yes, that includes the editorial staff who pick and choose the stories to present) is laughably trollish and biased on the subject of IP laws.
Generally stories about copyright infringement and such are packed to the brim with breathtakingly stupid comments in the vein of "I shouldn't have to pay for anything". The response to your own comment in which the guy threatens to "personally demand that Google and every other major 'net search engine . . . immediately added and blocked" is just one of many perfect examples on display in this very thread.
Shallow. End. Of. The. Gene. Pool.
Oh, yeah -- Wall Street is JUST as opaque as the BitCoin fiasco; this fact, already proven, demonstrates that Bitcoin is really not much different than, and is just as reliable as, US currency; and this predictable attack, against which there were no defenses, was obviously a result of a conspiracy by the powers that be to slow adoption and stop the juggernaut that is Bitcoin.
Though this is arguably true, he can also be something of a pompous ass and displays a sometimes troubling and excessive sympathy for, or even infatuation with, big business. To read some of his opinions, you'd think he might be comfortable putting a pricetag on the life of a newborn infant.
Slashdot Mirror
Raincoat company confidently predicts that "the days of the umbrella are numbered".
Yeah, I can see how you couldn't have possibly reflected the story accurately, without misrepresenting it, in the space provided. GJ.
You know what's funny? The fact that that is not the story, that it has nothing to do with the story, and that the poster you replied to is absolutely correct. It's true that authors are victims, but they are victims in exactly the same way that the organization itself is a victim, and the rest of your comment is hogwash.
Leave it to Slashdot readers to find a story with a headline that says:
"Police raid Spanish copyright society in embezzlement case"
and change it to
"Spanish Copyright Society Raided For Embezzlement"
just because the latter is what they'd rather hear.
Besides lacking anything resembling the "driving principles" that you could say underlie the Wikileaks organization â" notice the Orlando leak basically boils down to "we don't like some state politicians so we will publicize sensitive private details about them" â" this site likely lacks the assurances of confidentiality that Wikileaks is able to make, both practical (secure handling protocols) and legal (based in Sweden, with unusually strong confidential-source protections), not to mention the maturity and organizational discipline to respect and protect that confidentiality.
Reasonable people may have widely differing opinions on Wikileaks, but I'd say anyone seriously considering dropping a bombshell of confidential information would be stupid to take it to these kids instead of Wikileaks. It's almost as if this is a distraction technique designed to make Wikileaks look good by comparison.
Holy idiotic screed, Batman!
You are an unhinged twit.
amirite???
HOLY EMBARASSING LOGIC FAILURE, BATMAN! Think about the previous poster's hypothetical; then think about your response; then ask yourself: "Why am I so freaking dumb?"
This has always been a bullshit argument offered up by people who are desperate to convince themselves (and others) that they're not stealing (which they are).
is just something I would like to draw everyone's attention to
otherwise this might be extremely troubling.
At best you've shown that it wouldn't be incredibly expensive for publishers to make journal articles available for free online; and that paying publishers for the services they provide wouldn't be necessary if only our entire university system were structured and administered in a completely different way.
You haven't even suggested a justification for forcing a private company to provide for free something it's not obligated to provide for free, and which it has significant investments sunk into developing, maintaining, and preserving the rights to. You haven't even made what would surely be your "easiest" argument: that somehow the fact that public funding is involved means that the public should be not just given access to, but actively served the product of the government funding, without limitation. You haven't apparently contemplated whether the type of free services you're discussing would actually increase the amount of government funding that would be required for any given project, or all projects in the aggregate. And you've only sketched the barest outline of how things could be done differently.
This is all well and good, but it's somewhat pie-in-the-sky and is not responsive to my own post, which merely pointed out that everything has to be paid for by somebody, and also that the above posters have not paid for the service they apparently feel entitled to.
What could come of your comments? Perhaps a compelling policy argument, or, instead, a promising business plan. But nowhere therein was there any kind of sound justification for simply ripping off online versions of scholarly works just because the researcher and his university received government grants to help pay for work product which you could read for free in a library.
Regards,
Legal Troll (from my own account! yay!)
Your "goddamned tax dollars" also paid for every public parking space in the city you live in, but you still have to feed the meter or pay a garage fee. It takes a horrifyingly oversimplified view of life to think that simply having contributed some fractional share towards paying for some aspect of something, you personally fully own all aspects of the result. Even if taxpayer funding was the only type of funding used (it wasn't) you'd still be paying access fees to some company that contracted with the government to try to recoup the government's own outlay by charging access fees.
Sorry if that makes u mad, bro.
And, my comment to the other guy wasn't a "stopped beating your wife yet" comment. He was openly suggesting that the price difference between online access and the cost of using a photocopier at a library you've already traveled to, where you've already located and pulled the book you need, merits ripping off the digital copy. Notwithstanding that fact it was a fairly ridiculous comparison to begin with.
So, because you don't feel like heading to the library to make that photocopy, you think you'd be justified in ripping off the digital copy that some company has made available online at its own expense?
Gee, sounds like a sucker's game to me. If that's the way you want to play, don't be surprised if the online publishers close up shop and tell you to hoof it to one of those awesome locations where you can get the information more or less for free, at your own expense. Because Lord knows nobody's obligated to start up a business to cater to your whims by providing services you're not willing to pay for.
What's that? Oh, you're just complaining about the price point? I suppose I should have noticed that from the start and disregarded your comment entirely.
The submitter blatantly rewrites the article to fit the typically mindless anti-authority prejudice that's rife among Slashdot readers.
He writes: "Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."
In fact, the article recommends that cops search the phones of PEOPLE THEY'RE ARRESTING to look for apps designed to transmit recordings to a remote location, as well as isolate the phone from radio signals to prevent someone remotely wiping it.
I certainly can't say I see the "irony" in cops not wanting every random criminal on the street being able to send videos of the cops who arrested him to all his buddies. And in any event, when you get arrested, you get searched.
Your opposition is also ill-conceived and will have no effect.
I'm not sure how to correct a world-view that is so hopelessly skewed as to equate Google and TPB for the reasons you state while conveniently ignoring minor details like one entity being a legitimate, useful service provided by a company that makes major efforts to comply with the law, while the other is just a website designed to be a haven for people to break the law.
Sucky world-view, devoid of logic. Typical on Slashdot.
HTH
Slashdot itself (yes, that includes the editorial staff who pick and choose the stories to present) is laughably trollish and biased on the subject of IP laws. Generally stories about copyright infringement and such are packed to the brim with breathtakingly stupid comments in the vein of "I shouldn't have to pay for anything". The response to your own comment in which the guy threatens to "personally demand that Google and every other major 'net search engine . . . immediately added and blocked" is just one of many perfect examples on display in this very thread. Shallow. End. Of. The. Gene. Pool.
Concur, file this under "basic understanding of how the world works".
If you've never seen one of these logos and been curious enough to discover their meaning on your own, do you really care enough to read this story?
Oh, yeah -- Wall Street is JUST as opaque as the BitCoin fiasco; this fact, already proven, demonstrates that Bitcoin is really not much different than, and is just as reliable as, US currency; and this predictable attack, against which there were no defenses, was obviously a result of a conspiracy by the powers that be to slow adoption and stop the juggernaut that is Bitcoin.
Scallops are a migratory species of marine life. Sorry about your tiny pink science, bro. HTH
See what I mean? Plenty of people with very low Slashdot UIDs are epic dumbshits. QED.
lulz
Though this is arguably true, he can also be something of a pompous ass and displays a sometimes troubling and excessive sympathy for, or even infatuation with, big business. To read some of his opinions, you'd think he might be comfortable putting a pricetag on the life of a newborn infant.
News at 11. This practically never happens.
So basically learn something or STFU
awesome