You're missing his point by 100 miles. You use padlocks and other security devices to protect your PRIVATE PROPERTY. You're allowed to shoot people that attack you, if you're at home. You're entitled to the right to defend yourself and your private property.
Culture is not private property. It's public, and copyright is only an incentive for society to create more.
Sure, if you own a book, it's yours and, from that perspective, it's private property. Because you own that copy of the book.
But the rules that regulate how the book is to be copied are NOT the same rules that protect private property.
How you overlooked this simple and self-evident difference, is beyond me.
Dude, asking that question is so wrong. In principle, there's no reason to think the author can't support itself just because his books don't go for money -- in the past plenty of authors managed to survive without copyright.
Secondly, just because a book is free to be passed around doesn't mean that the book won't sell.
Don't expect us to do your thinking. Start thinking about a solution yourself. Or even better, let the book authors concern themselves with their livelihoods -- it's simple economics.
Read the book "Against intellectual monopoly" (itself a free download, google for it), then come back.
Who the fuck gave you the idea that you're morally entitled to profit from your ideas? No law anywhere recognizes that stupid notion, precisely because it's stupid: if the world did really work the way you think it ought to, progress would grind to a halt.
Perhaps you've bought too much into the media cartels protectionism propaganda?
This is the stupidest question I've heard throughout the year.
If this "ideal" DRM you're implying on your question *did really* comply with everything set forth in your initial assumption, it'd still be useless for me.
Why? Because I like to do lots of things with, say, music I have. Remixes and megamixes. Sharing it with my friends. And that's just a corner example, I could recite ten more.
By definition, Digital Restrictions Management is about creating unnatural obstacles to these kinds of uses. These unnatural roadblocks translate into my direct and unwavering unhappiness. Therefore, it sucks.
The whole notion of others controlling things and knowledge in my power is absurd. We as a society tolerate it only because 1) we all recognize there's value in monetary incentive, and 2) we have too many politicians bowing to people in power.
Unnecessary nuisances should be treated exactly like unnecessary laws: shot upon sight.
I mean, ESR has always been on the "convenience before values" side of the coin in the Free Software / Open Source struggle.
Whenever you feel "tempted by the dark side", all you need to do is remember, it was convenience and conformism which got us to this pathetic point in the software industry.
You're a moron. 70% of the population of the world aren't murdering anyone. If anything, the percentage of people that murder others rests below 1%. That's the answer to your stupid statement.
Both sentences in your post not only are blatantly wrong (there are laws in war, did you know? you just can't do whatever you please) but they spread FUD as well. The war on Iraq is wrong because it's a violation of sovereignity (which is a principle we hold dear to) and because it's killed innocent civilians (forbidden by international law) and because it's dragged the entire U.S. into being polarized about issues that, to anyone with a shred of human decency, would have been solved EONS ago.
Killing is wrong (unless you're doing it to defend yourself in an immediate threat, which is CLEARLY not the case with Saddam). Killing innocent people is even wronger. In reality, you should take a look at the real interests behind the war, rather than the moustache-faced man called Saddam (yes, we know he's a bitch, but that's an issue his own country's people should have dealt with, instead of the States).
The Berne Convention (which your country is SURELY an underwriter of) clearly states that all works are copyrighted, unless the author(s) have waived that copyright and put the works in the public domain. The fact that the Torrentwhatever works have waived copyright or put their work under CC licenses doesn't mean shit in the context of your post.
Plainly said, all media that is sold is copyrighted until proven otherwise. That's the story as far as legality goes.
Moron. Why don't you read before spewing shit that might lead people into unknowingly running afoul of the law?
Now, knowingly practicing civil disobedience, that's what I endorse.
The Court's ruling (even tho I'm ecuadorian, I keep tabs on U.S. law because I know it'll trickle down to where we are... eh, according to my investigation, it's already trickled down in a form that is nastier that in the States...)
Okay, getting back to the point here (I've had 4 beers now) is that the Court's ruling was that the "VCR had substantial non-infringing uses, and that it was legal, because of time-shifting". The Court waived any ruling regarding even private copying for archival, much less copying for a friend (yes, that's the VCR I'm talking, so copying of cassettes or CDs would be included as well). The Court simply didn't rule in favor of private copies (which is dealt with in another case) or copies lent to friends (for which there is no ruling in case law ATM).
So, if you're "time-shifting", it's legal (with 100% certainty if it's analog, murky waters if it's digital). But there has been no Court that explicitly states that lending to a friend is legal. In the States. So, you'd better stay away of that.
Or do what I do: just download, rip and copy from lent copies (originals only, to preserve the quality, which is a big plus if you're dealing in Ogg Vorbis like me) and just don't give a fuck about the law, which was bought, after all.
You know what? Law is supposed to be fair. That's the purpose of Law. Too bad it's been co-opted by mafia-style robber barons.
Go read the problem with music and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.
You obviously never read the CSS spec, or owned a Palm with a Web browser.
Oh, well, I guess your motto is "words are free, so why not write a few?"
Re:Happens to lose a bit of data? Give me a break.
on
Dvorak Rants on CSS
·
· Score: 1
No, it's because one of the "internets" is failing to reach him, and the culprits are the gazillion criminal pirates downloading DVDs with BitTorrent
Re:This is why I couldn't stomach web programming!
on
Dvorak Rants on CSS
·
· Score: 1
You are an ignorant moron who does not have a single clue about what you're talking about. Creating a semantic Web site is *very easy* (and there's tons of lit on the Web about it, but you should start with the W3C recommendations) and styling it afterwards is even easier (and now, with the famous IE7 addon, you get IE to work properly with tricky CSS). You evidently have not heard about layered programming, or else you wouldn't be talking stupidities like "embedding SQL into PHP" when you should actually be striving hard to keep them separate and isolated from each other.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing his point by 100 miles. You use padlocks and other security devices to protect your PRIVATE PROPERTY. You're allowed to shoot people that attack you, if you're at home. You're entitled to the right to defend yourself and your private property.
Culture is not private property. It's public, and copyright is only an incentive for society to create more.
Sure, if you own a book, it's yours and, from that perspective, it's private property. Because you own that copy of the book.
But the rules that regulate how the book is to be copied are NOT the same rules that protect private property.
How you overlooked this simple and self-evident difference, is beyond me.
Dude, asking that question is so wrong. In principle, there's no reason to think the author can't support itself just because his books don't go for money -- in the past plenty of authors managed to survive without copyright.
Secondly, just because a book is free to be passed around doesn't mean that the book won't sell.
Don't expect us to do your thinking. Start thinking about a solution yourself. Or even better, let the book authors concern themselves with their livelihoods -- it's simple economics.
Read the book "Against intellectual monopoly" (itself a free download, google for it), then come back.
Who the fuck gave you the idea that you're morally entitled to profit from your ideas? No law anywhere recognizes that stupid notion, precisely because it's stupid: if the world did really work the way you think it ought to, progress would grind to a halt.
Perhaps you've bought too much into the media cartels protectionism propaganda?
This is the stupidest question I've heard throughout the year.
If this "ideal" DRM you're implying on your question *did really* comply with everything set forth in your initial assumption, it'd still be useless for me.
Why? Because I like to do lots of things with, say, music I have. Remixes and megamixes. Sharing it with my friends. And that's just a corner example, I could recite ten more.
By definition, Digital Restrictions Management is about creating unnatural obstacles to these kinds of uses. These unnatural roadblocks translate into my direct and unwavering unhappiness. Therefore, it sucks.
The whole notion of others controlling things and knowledge in my power is absurd. We as a society tolerate it only because 1) we all recognize there's value in monetary incentive, and 2) we have too many politicians bowing to people in power.
Unnecessary nuisances should be treated exactly like unnecessary laws: shot upon sight.
but it was too long, so I just blogged about it: Of licenses, Microsoft Office, and user interfaces
This has so many factual errors and stupid assumptions, that I just had to reboot my brain.
First of all, there *is* a Joe User friendly distro, and not only it isn't unpopular, it's the MOST POPULAR at the moment. It's called Ubuntu.
Second, the Catholic Church has a very long tradition of compromising on values.
I mean, ESR has always been on the "convenience before values" side of the coin in the Free Software / Open Source struggle.
Whenever you feel "tempted by the dark side", all you need to do is remember, it was convenience and conformism which got us to this pathetic point in the software industry.
If they're profitable, why are they complaining?
Oh, yes.
Greed.
You're a moron. 70% of the population of the world aren't murdering anyone. If anything, the percentage of people that murder others rests below 1%. That's the answer to your stupid statement.
40 dB stereo separation? Shit, that is really LOUSY compared to today's cheapest soundcards!
(I did get the sarcasm in your post, though)
Both sentences in your post not only are blatantly wrong (there are laws in war, did you know? you just can't do whatever you please) but they spread FUD as well. The war on Iraq is wrong because it's a violation of sovereignity (which is a principle we hold dear to) and because it's killed innocent civilians (forbidden by international law) and because it's dragged the entire U.S. into being polarized about issues that, to anyone with a shred of human decency, would have been solved EONS ago.
Killing is wrong (unless you're doing it to defend yourself in an immediate threat, which is CLEARLY not the case with Saddam). Killing innocent people is even wronger. In reality, you should take a look at the real interests behind the war, rather than the moustache-faced man called Saddam (yes, we know he's a bitch, but that's an issue his own country's people should have dealt with, instead of the States).
You're spreading FUD, you ignorant mother fucker.
The Berne Convention (which your country is SURELY an underwriter of) clearly states that all works are copyrighted, unless the author(s) have waived that copyright and put the works in the public domain. The fact that the Torrentwhatever works have waived copyright or put their work under CC licenses doesn't mean shit in the context of your post.
Plainly said, all media that is sold is copyrighted until proven otherwise. That's the story as far as legality goes.
Moron. Why don't you read before spewing shit that might lead people into unknowingly running afoul of the law?
Now, knowingly practicing civil disobedience, that's what I endorse.
The Court's ruling (even tho I'm ecuadorian, I keep tabs on U.S. law because I know it'll trickle down to where we are... eh, according to my investigation, it's already trickled down in a form that is nastier that in the States...)
Okay, getting back to the point here (I've had 4 beers now) is that the Court's ruling was that the "VCR had substantial non-infringing uses, and that it was legal, because of time-shifting". The Court waived any ruling regarding even private copying for archival, much less copying for a friend (yes, that's the VCR I'm talking, so copying of cassettes or CDs would be included as well). The Court simply didn't rule in favor of private copies (which is dealt with in another case) or copies lent to friends (for which there is no ruling in case law ATM).
So, if you're "time-shifting", it's legal (with 100% certainty if it's analog, murky waters if it's digital). But there has been no Court that explicitly states that lending to a friend is legal. In the States. So, you'd better stay away of that.
Or do what I do: just download, rip and copy from lent copies (originals only, to preserve the quality, which is a big plus if you're dealing in Ogg Vorbis like me) and just don't give a fuck about the law, which was bought, after all.
You know what? Law is supposed to be fair. That's the purpose of Law. Too bad it's been co-opted by mafia-style robber barons.
No, more like "the favorite band among the 10 artists and bands the RIAA-member conglomerates push to mock up an illusion of choice".
Maybe Lars Ulrich...
Oh... I guess they've gone mainstream now that it's hip to have your tracks sold as non-DRM MP3's.
Bitch.
Go read the problem with music and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.
Simply because theft or stealing implies that the aggrieved party does NO LONGER have the item you took away.
You've fallen into the propaganda black hole, stupid. Look theft or stealing up in a dictionary.
Moron.
You obviously never read the CSS spec, or owned a Palm with a Web browser.
Oh, well, I guess your motto is "words are free, so why not write a few?"
No, it's because one of the "internets" is failing to reach him, and the culprits are the gazillion criminal pirates downloading DVDs with BitTorrent
You are an ignorant moron who does not have a single clue about what you're talking about. Creating a semantic Web site is *very easy* (and there's tons of lit on the Web about it, but you should start with the W3C recommendations) and styling it afterwards is even easier (and now, with the famous IE7 addon, you get IE to work properly with tricky CSS). You evidently have not heard about layered programming, or else you wouldn't be talking stupidities like "embedding SQL into PHP" when you should actually be striving hard to keep them separate and isolated from each other.
Moron.
This is called DOM Inspector and it comes standard in Firefox
Dvorak, trolling? Oh, no, this couldn't be possible... could it?
Another day, another Dvorak troll.
And here's my analysis (in Spanish, of course)
and I've done so in my own site.
I hope laws are passed soon to explicitly allow this research. Read more at http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/03/03/the-truths-a bout-stem-cell-research/