Intellectual property is a myth. You CANNOT and SHOULD not be able to own an idea. I am beginning to think that this may be a real turning point in civilization as we know it. Imagination and the associated innovation based off that imagination is what makes us able to do so many amazing things. Now, you can imagine building something to change the world, you can even imagine how to build it, but if someone has previously thought of it, you are in for a losing legal battle. This may be an extreme statment with regard to software patents, but the premise is frightening in either scenario. This is a legal restriction on free thought and development. Software patents are just one piece of the larger takeover.
I cannot think of a better demonstration that Business-Government "contracts" are entirely out of control. There were a lot of people and organizations that spoke out against this, to the point that some voting members felt "harassed" by non-industry folks. Nevertheless, the vote went to those who can pay the "lobbying fee". It is disgusting that this is becoming so prevelant the world over. Corporations have all the rights of citizens, but less responsibility, and damn near better access to the politicians who are supposed to represent the people/national interest. Mod me down as an anti-corporate flamer, but this is just all too indicative of the overall trend of every government.
Hrmm. I have had SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell) DSL for almost three years. I have no issues with it. Plug it into the router, and it works. Not as fast as some other broadband options I have seen, but still just fine for downloading ISOs, email, patches, software, whatever.
I cannot find a straight answer for this in the article. It seems like you can record a DVD to.avi on the portable unit. Can you then take the.avi off of the portable unit and store it on your computer?
Ok, slow down there cowboy. the FSF is nice and all, but there not the "last hope of the free world" or the "lets save the whales and children fund" or anything. This is computer software, not the key to world peace...
I mean it. I would be far more able to struggle through Linux setups if the documentation wasn't so horrible. I am busy, and I just don't have the time anymore to spend hours resolving dependency issues, installation problems, or my favorite, printer configuration. I don't mind a little bit of extra work, but if the documentation isn't up to snuff, it makes even a little bit of work strenuous. That's why I'm strongly considering a mac. I work on computer issues all day. I don't want to have to worry about them at home. Good documentation could alleviate that. As a side note, I really think all the 50 million ways to do anything is 90% of the problem regarding documentation. It's not that the documentation is so bad, it's just that it can't possibly account for the ridiculous number of configurations possible. Likewise, one could argue that the hardware support issues and distribution differences (rpm vs apt-get anyone?) are to blame. I want it to just work like the documentation says it will.
It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle.
I would agree with you, but the problem is that they never grant the same courtesy to anyone else.
Apple does not want to release their code under the GPL. It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. However, Stallman and the other FSF "advocates" don't want to hear that. Ever. It drives me nuts to hear such blatant hypocrisy from someone who is so often touted as being "revolutionary". More like elitist and closed-minded if you ask me.
What I want to know is: "Why has Linus neither revoked SCO's ability to use the Linux trademark or told everyone what code has the possibility of being "corrupt"?
As an addendum to my own comment, I still cannot decide if it is really funny or really sad when i can flip between three stations all simultaneously playing the same song.
Here is an analysis of Houston radio, which is mostly clearchannel owned crap:
93.7 The Arrow - Classic Rock Station (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Thankfully, there are no other classic rock stations, so the songs are at least not played anywhere else.
94.5 The Buzz - "Alternative" (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. The songs rotate slowly with the incoming new music, but you hear the same stuff most every day with little change.
96.5 The mix - Mix of "Alternative", "classic" and 80s rock (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Since it does not have the virture of an older "fuddier" listener group like the arrow, it does slowly rotate in new songs every now and then from the "alternative" scene.
101.1 -Hard rock/Alternative- (clearchannel owned) This one is the worst. It was a very cool station before clearchannel bought it. Now it is horribly repetitive and plays the same shit as 94.5, only with some AC/DC every now and then to pick up some older 80s rock fans.
I'm leaving out country and rap, but they tend to not be owned by clearchannel. They have their own issues though, rap plays the current songs over and over and then never again. Country is the same.
anyhow, let's analyze the stations i listed. take a popular band for instance, say evanesence (sp?). This band is played on 94.5, 101.1, and 96.5. Which does it belong on? I would say only 94.5 and 101.1 based on the "cataloging". Likewise, Eminem is playe don the rap stations, but also sometimes on 94.5, the "alternative" station. Classic Rock gets played on 93.7 and 101.1, whereas the "mix" plays a little of all three genres (classic rock, heavy rock, and alternaitve). Ths point is that you hear the same songs one every station, more or less without fail and regardless of station "identity".
Which brings up the bad thing. Soon you won't own any media. Everything is rented. Like LOTR? Be prepared to pay for it every time you want to see it. Watch it once a month? That's gonna add up quick...
Yeah, I was a bit irritated that my question wasn't answerable too. Basically, I think what he said amounts to, "Yeah we know that doesn't make sense, but it hasn't come up yet for review." Makes me wonder why congress doesn't think about these things before writing the laws...
' People have responsibility for their actions. I'm not a "forced consumer". I choose what I consume. The question, really, is "what do I see my choices as being?"'
No, the question really is, "Can I choose not to consume?"
It seems that more and more, the answer is leaning towards "no." Be it pop-up ads, spam, or the ever dwindling supply of items not produced by mega-corporations. How far in the future lies the possibilty that "alternatives" to the mass-produced are forbidden? When will it be impossible to find food not manufactured by Kraft? Software not manufactured by Microsoft?
Legislation promoting "intellectual property" embraces a cultural ideology that thrives on stifling "idea innovation". For example, by definition, Disney owns copyright on "The Little Mermaid" as they made it. The extension of "intellectual property" gives Disney the ability to extend their copyright to any idea even resembling their own. You can bet that if I made a comic strip featuring a mermaid named Ariel, I'd be sued. (The irony of Disney's use of stories in the public domain is not lost on me, either...) Or say I start a company with a brand new product. Intellectual property may forbid my producing it just because someone previously thought of it, regardless of whether or not they ever plan to make it.
My point isn't about what choices exist, but whether or not a choice will exist at all. I don't necessarily want to consume what they offer!
---rhad
Consumer by Force
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Arguments supported by Hollywood promoting copyright as "property" has a more grevious undertone, in my opinion. It seeks to divide everyone into two categories: The content creators and the content consumers. To many people inside the corporate media sphere see themselves as the only suppliers of creative ingenuity, innovation, and art. It appears that for the sake of protecting their egomania and "intellectual property" anyone who owns a computer is going to be forced to have it turned into nothing more than a fancy TV.
The word consumer, as a whole, is also a source of aggravation. It implies a notion of being fed, of being given content that you don't necessarily desire. And this is precisely what this notion of "distributors of intellectual property" is demanding of you. Sit down in front of your computer/TV, pay an exorbitant fee, and watch the same old boring content and advertisement barrage over and over again. The great thing about the current computer is its ability to allow for the construction of content, not its ability to supply it. This is further amplified by the Internet, and the accompanying ease of distribution and immense audience. For instance, a musician could record a song onto his computer and sell it via the Internet, or a graphic artist could market his art. In the future, perhaps even an independent film company could market it's wares online. A future dictated by DRM and "property" restrictions allows only a few select companies to digitally "watermark" their media in a manner which the now-crippled computer can read. Does anyone honestly believe that these same companies that desire such immense control will relinquish it in the future to independents desiring to sell to the same market?
Suddenly a person is no longer an individual, but a forced consumer of multiple mega-corporations. The prospect is as disturbing as it is possible. The myth of "intellectual property" is curbing and inhibiting the free expression of ideas and content, precisely what copyright law was intended to promote.
A previous poster pointed out that his uncle, who got the letter too, merely phoned his lawyer and the case was dropped. So no, I don't give two shits about people like Sosa. If you are too dumb to learn the system (including your rights) or are too lazy/scared to fight it, that's your problem.
But isn't this slightly flawed when the greedy middle-men (CEOs, Corrupt Shareholders, Politicians etc) take their piece of the pie? Globalism, as you describe it in your last paragraph, seems rather naive. Analogous to, say, Laissez-Faire (sp?) economics...
Slashdot Mirror
--rhad
---rhad
---rhad
--rhad
---rhad
---rhad
SPEWS sucks.
---rhad
Ok, slow down there cowboy. the FSF is nice and all, but there not the "last hope of the free world" or the "lets save the whales and children fund" or anything. This is computer software, not the key to world peace...
sheesh...
--rhad
--rhad
--rhad
I would agree with you, but the problem is that they never grant the same courtesy to anyone else.
Apple does not want to release their code under the GPL. It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. However, Stallman and the other FSF "advocates" don't want to hear that. Ever. It drives me nuts to hear such blatant hypocrisy from someone who is so often touted as being "revolutionary". More like elitist and closed-minded if you ask me.
---rhad
--rhad
---rhad
Here is an analysis of Houston radio, which is mostly clearchannel owned crap:
93.7 The Arrow - Classic Rock Station (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Thankfully, there are no other classic rock stations, so the songs are at least not played anywhere else.
94.5 The Buzz - "Alternative" (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. The songs rotate slowly with the incoming new music, but you hear the same stuff most every day with little change.
96.5 The mix - Mix of "Alternative", "classic" and 80s rock (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Since it does not have the virture of an older "fuddier" listener group like the arrow, it does slowly rotate in new songs every now and then from the "alternative" scene.
101.1 -Hard rock/Alternative- (clearchannel owned) This one is the worst. It was a very cool station before clearchannel bought it. Now it is horribly repetitive and plays the same shit as 94.5, only with some AC/DC every now and then to pick up some older 80s rock fans.
I'm leaving out country and rap, but they tend to not be owned by clearchannel. They have their own issues though, rap plays the current songs over and over and then never again. Country is the same.
anyhow, let's analyze the stations i listed. take a popular band for instance, say evanesence (sp?). This band is played on 94.5, 101.1, and 96.5. Which does it belong on? I would say only 94.5 and 101.1 based on the "cataloging". Likewise, Eminem is playe don the rap stations, but also sometimes on 94.5, the "alternative" station. Classic Rock gets played on 93.7 and 101.1, whereas the "mix" plays a little of all three genres (classic rock, heavy rock, and alternaitve). Ths point is that you hear the same songs one every station, more or less without fail and regardless of station "identity".
it sucks.
----rhad
--rhad
---rhad
---rhad
No, the question really is, "Can I choose not to consume?"
It seems that more and more, the answer is leaning towards "no." Be it pop-up ads, spam, or the ever dwindling supply of items not produced by mega-corporations. How far in the future lies the possibilty that "alternatives" to the mass-produced are forbidden? When will it be impossible to find food not manufactured by Kraft? Software not manufactured by Microsoft?
Legislation promoting "intellectual property" embraces a cultural ideology that thrives on stifling "idea innovation". For example, by definition, Disney owns copyright on "The Little Mermaid" as they made it. The extension of "intellectual property" gives Disney the ability to extend their copyright to any idea even resembling their own. You can bet that if I made a comic strip featuring a mermaid named Ariel, I'd be sued. (The irony of Disney's use of stories in the public domain is not lost on me, either...) Or say I start a company with a brand new product. Intellectual property may forbid my producing it just because someone previously thought of it, regardless of whether or not they ever plan to make it.
My point isn't about what choices exist, but whether or not a choice will exist at all. I don't necessarily want to consume what they offer!
---rhad
The word consumer, as a whole, is also a source of aggravation. It implies a notion of being fed, of being given content that you don't necessarily desire. And this is precisely what this notion of "distributors of intellectual property" is demanding of you. Sit down in front of your computer/TV, pay an exorbitant fee, and watch the same old boring content and advertisement barrage over and over again. The great thing about the current computer is its ability to allow for the construction of content, not its ability to supply it. This is further amplified by the Internet, and the accompanying ease of distribution and immense audience. For instance, a musician could record a song onto his computer and sell it via the Internet, or a graphic artist could market his art. In the future, perhaps even an independent film company could market it's wares online. A future dictated by DRM and "property" restrictions allows only a few select companies to digitally "watermark" their media in a manner which the now-crippled computer can read. Does anyone honestly believe that these same companies that desire such immense control will relinquish it in the future to independents desiring to sell to the same market?
Suddenly a person is no longer an individual, but a forced consumer of multiple mega-corporations. The prospect is as disturbing as it is possible. The myth of "intellectual property" is curbing and inhibiting the free expression of ideas and content, precisely what copyright law was intended to promote.
---rhad
DUH.
--rhad
-- Rep. DAVID OBEY, D-Wis., sponsor of legislation on Capitol Hill to block a new FCC rule allowing media companies to buy more TV stations.
Found that on Yahoo.
--rhad
--rhad
One more thing:
If you make peer-2-peer apps illegal, a surprising outcome will be a tenfold increase in FTP sites and IRC usage.
--rhad
--rhad