The stupidity of this position is very easy to explain. He's claiming that the worst thing (losing user data) is the only thing to worry about. Since non-root doesn't prevent that, let's get rid of it.
To use his own analogy, if the worst thing that can happen in a car is to run into a wall, then why have door locks? Whether you have locks on the door or not, you're still going to die. And they make it hard to get into the car, so let's get rid of them.
This whole comment has way more emotion than logic, but I'd like to respond as best I can.
1) True. I'm not sure what the point here is.
2) You're welcome to riducule the importance of ease of use, but the bottom line is that a product that's easier to use is a better product. Does this trump all other concerns? No. Should it be a factor in how we decide to design our products? Yes
3) I don't find Doctorow's speech to be strident. If nothing else, it's less strident than your post. However, it's true that anything can be copied, and everyone who learns this is better off, especially holders of copyright and those creating media technologies.
4) Whethere or not there are business models that can succeed in the age of perfect, cheap copies is a point for honest debate. I've never heard of conditions under which motivated entrepreneurs can't find a way to make money, but until they do, it's an open subject. In the meantime, mocking those who believe that a business model that benefits both artists and consumers can be built isn't an argument against, it's just an ad-hominem attack.
5) Claiming that we're all better off when producers of art, music and literature are able to create works that are inspired by or remix earlier works is not the same thing as saying that those earlier works are worthless. You might disagree that everyone benefits, but it's kind of ridiculous to claim that anyone thinks art is worthless.
In response to your final question, I would answer that if there were no conditions under which people with computers and internet connections would pay for a movie/book/cd/whatever, that the studios and publishers would have already gone out of business.
I see this as a rights issue. But the right I'm concerned about is being able to not receive spam. This isn't necessarily about the right to send spam.
Huh? If this is the case, why aren't you spending time breaking the encyption in ssl in order to pick up some credit card numbers instead of posting stupid comments on Slashdot?
Re:Analysts usually manage to miss the point...
on
Real DRM
·
· Score: 1
Well, that's a brilliant insight.
Why do you suppose it's ubiquitous? Why do you suppose there's so much free-as-in-beer content? Could it have anything to do with the umpteen players and encoders available? Any might there be so many because the specs are available? (I wouldn't say "open" given the patent situation.)
Fine, but don't tell me that we can unless you can tell me how.
I can't tell you how. I can't describe something that probably hasn't yet been invented. But that doesn't mean it won't.
That sounds like mere hand waving, I know. But ask yourself this question. Can you name one example of a technological change that eliminated the production of something that people desired? There's a market for new television programming. Someone will find a profitable way to satisfy that demand, with or without comercials, with or without file swapping.
And so far, commercials (in whatever form) are the best idea.
Comercials were the best idea, given the conditions that previously existed. And they still are, at the moment. But that may change soon. Then, unless Congress or the courts intervene, and perhaps in any case, something better will be invented.
This is where I disagree with most arguments against copying and file sharing. It demonstrates a real lack of imagination. The current business models are those that have worked due to the cultural and technological conditions that existed at the time they were developed. They are not the only possible solutions. If I could access at no charge all the books, music, and movies ever produced, someone would find a way to make money in that environment. They always have and they always will. Services-based models, micro-payments, patronage or sponsorship, things that haven't been invented, who knows?
But don't tell me that we can split the atom and put a man on the moon, but we can't find a way to fund television development sans commercials.
I agree. It only takes one leak, and then your on a CD with 10,000,000 addresses that all the spammers sell to each other. (And to me!) But I disagree with the spirit of your statement, "short of beating my friends and family around the head." Why shouldn't your family (and you) use your address in any cool, innovative manner that someone can design a web site around. An invitations site may not be revolutionary, but I think it's really cool. Pardon a lame paraphrasing of a tired idea, but if we stop using our email any way we like, the spammers have won.;-)
... they automatically assume that I wan't to be a programmer or an engineer.
Main Entry: 1 wan't Pronunciation: 'wont also 'want &'w&nt Function: contraction Etymology: Early 21st century American English, poplurized online by wannabe systems administrators
1: contracion of "wall not", as in "My mom wants me to go to college, but I wan't! I'm going to be an u1tr@ LeEt sy$@dm1n!"
The items on their lists may not fit the strict definition of vaporware, but they do tend to suffer from being over-publicized before being ready. That's worth our riducule, even if the software itself is still under development and later makes it to market.
Your statement is not accurate. Your examples point out the fact that quality to the exlusion of any other factor doesn't matter. Only fanatics choose the highest quality option, no matter how much it costs or how convenient it is.
Quality does matter, or else DVDs wouldn't be as popular as they are. The reason why DVDs aren't as popular as laserdisc is because they don't require compromises in order to get quality. They're not only of higher quality than VHS, but smaller, cheaper (to the producers, at least, which explains the big promotional push), and more feature rich.
I can't say whether Ogg will succeed, but it offers quality without any drawbacks, and therefore I think your argument is irrelevant.
The notion that without monetary incentive, musicians (or any artist) wouldn't produce is ridiculous, and it blows me away that people are so willing to parrot this idea. Music is an inherent part of human culture, has always been produced, and always will be.
Artists' rights are an important part of the debate here, but let's not spout obviously absurd ideas.
You make a good point, but StarOffice (and others) compatability is still an issue. In an office environment, usually everyone has the exact same version of Office. So, when I mess up documents in SO, I'm the bad guy. =(
The facts they are using are not biased. The point of the article is that the software is preventing people from seeing legitimate sites. For the purposes of this study, it doesn't matter how much porn gets through, just how many things are inappropriately censored. Given that they are very clear about their methods, data, and conclusions, your accusation of bias is quite unfair.
Discussion response: Don't bother to explain it to the business people. They're not stupid, but they are in the business of making money. Explain it to your representatives. I know the passage of the DMCA has us all bitter, but representative democracy still works, especially if groups such as ourselves organize on the internet. Don't like the DMCA? Explain it to the EFF and ACLU, with your checkbook or your volunteer time. They will challenge the law in court, and they may very well be able to win.
For its part, 2600 simply removed the links to copies of DeCSS. But they left the non-HTML versions of the addresses intact, so visitors can simply copy and paste them into a browser window.
Making the ruling almost meaningless. The bottom line is that the technologists will always be one step ahead of the corporations, the lobbyists, the lawmakers and the courts. (Reference DeCSS, the endless Napster clones, the Cyberpatrol hack, the profusion of mirror sites anytime a court orders the removal of content from a website, etc.) As long as we, the creators of technology, remain commited to civil rights (and I think it is in the nature of such forward looking people to be so commited), then civil rights online will have a bright future.
I think there is no satisfactory answer to your question. The only thing which comes close is a full time monitor who has control of the mouse and keyboard at all times. However, this is rather contrary to the spirit of "surfing".
My ethical question for you is, "Why are you putting something which will almost certainly be used for porn at some point accross the street from a junior high school?" Whatever wizard solution you come up with, some kids are going to see some things which their parents wouldn't approve of. Why do we have to have internet access everywhere? Another poster compared putting internet access in schools and libraries to putting a freeway in a playground and he's got a point. Internet access is a powerful thing which requires significant responsibility, responsibility which we will hopefully instill in our children. But we had best think carefully about where and when we provide access.
I think your "Surf 'n' Wash" idea is great business idea, but it may be flawed ethically. If this bothers you, get another job. There's no shortage at this time. =)
"I'm not a criminal so I have nothing to worry about," seems awfully popular when discussing law enforcement monitoring. Just remember this. Laws change. Governments change. Agencies change. Even if you trust the FBI, the Congress, and the President today, are you confident that no U.S. government agency will become corrupt or abuse its power in the future.
Now hold on a minute. The original post was not entirely elegant, but it's not fair to say that it's necessarily wrong either. This issue is more complex than just pirates vs. decent folk. It is a conflict between the interests of copyright holders vs. the interests of the public. geekd is expressing a desire to get back at the media companies which have become so successful by charging the maximum the market will bear ($18/cd and $8/head/movie, last I checked). His solution is simply employing the same tactics. In other words, "lets get as much as we can". A solution to the current earthshaking effects of technology on intellectual property will have to find a compromise between both points of view. In the meantime, don't fault those who choose to employ the same tactics as the recording and film industries.
I agree that it would be great if Oxford would stand up to the MPAA, but it's not realistic. The fact that the case wouldn't stand up in court doesn't matter. It still takes many hours of preparation for a lawyer to demonstrate to a judge that the case has no merit. At the absurd rates that lawyers charge, it could be thousands of dollars. That is where the deep pockets of the corporations get their strength. They can win without being right, because their opponents usually can't afford to get to the point where the correct ruling is handed down.
Slashdot Mirror
Might I not want to take some data with me, too?
The stupidity of this position is very easy to explain. He's claiming that the worst thing (losing user data) is the only thing to worry about. Since non-root doesn't prevent that, let's get rid of it.
To use his own analogy, if the worst thing that can happen in a car is to run into a wall, then why have door locks? Whether you have locks on the door or not, you're still going to die. And they make it hard to get into the car, so let's get rid of them.
How many times do we have to have the myth of cross platform UIs repeated?
As long as people keep downloading Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird.
This whole comment has way more emotion than logic, but I'd like to respond as best I can.
1) True. I'm not sure what the point here is.
2) You're welcome to riducule the importance of ease of use, but the bottom line is that a product that's easier to use is a better product. Does this trump all other concerns? No. Should it be a factor in how we decide to design our products? Yes
3) I don't find Doctorow's speech to be strident. If nothing else, it's less strident than your post. However, it's true that anything can be copied, and everyone who learns this is better off, especially holders of copyright and those creating media technologies.
4) Whethere or not there are business models that can succeed in the age of perfect, cheap copies is a point for honest debate. I've never heard of conditions under which motivated entrepreneurs can't find a way to make money, but until they do, it's an open subject. In the meantime, mocking those who believe that a business model that benefits both artists and consumers can be built isn't an argument against, it's just an ad-hominem attack.
5) Claiming that we're all better off when producers of art, music and literature are able to create works that are inspired by or remix earlier works is not the same thing as saying that those earlier works are worthless. You might disagree that everyone benefits, but it's kind of ridiculous to claim that anyone thinks art is worthless.
In response to your final question, I would answer that if there were no conditions under which people with computers and internet connections would pay for a movie/book/cd/whatever, that the studios and publishers would have already gone out of business.
Kind of like /. ;-)
I see this as a rights issue. But the right I'm concerned about is being able to not receive spam. This isn't necessarily about the right to send spam.
"Encryption will always be broken."
Huh? If this is the case, why aren't you spending time breaking the encyption in ssl in order to pick up some credit card numbers instead of posting stupid comments on Slashdot?
Well, that's a brilliant insight.
Why do you suppose it's ubiquitous? Why do you suppose there's so much free-as-in-beer content? Could it have anything to do with the umpteen players and encoders available? Any might there be so many because the specs are available? (I wouldn't say "open" given the patent situation.)
Fine, but don't tell me that we can unless you can tell me how.
I can't tell you how. I can't describe something that probably hasn't yet been invented. But that doesn't mean it won't.
That sounds like mere hand waving, I know. But ask yourself this question. Can you name one example of a technological change that eliminated the production of something that people desired? There's a market for new television programming. Someone will find a profitable way to satisfy that demand, with or without comercials, with or without file swapping.
And so far, commercials (in whatever form) are the best idea.
Comercials were the best idea, given the conditions that previously existed. And they still are, at the moment. But that may change soon. Then, unless Congress or the courts intervene, and perhaps in any case, something better will be invented.
There are no other solutions.
This is where I disagree with most arguments against copying and file sharing. It demonstrates a real lack of imagination. The current business models are those that have worked due to the cultural and technological conditions that existed at the time they were developed. They are not the only possible solutions. If I could access at no charge all the books, music, and movies ever produced, someone would find a way to make money in that environment. They always have and they always will. Services-based models, micro-payments, patronage or sponsorship, things that haven't been invented, who knows?
But don't tell me that we can split the atom and put a man on the moon, but we can't find a way to fund television development sans commercials.
I agree. It only takes one leak, and then your on a CD with 10,000,000 addresses that all the spammers sell to each other. (And to me!) But I disagree with the spirit of your statement, "short of beating my friends and family around the head." Why shouldn't your family (and you) use your address in any cool, innovative manner that someone can design a web site around. An invitations site may not be revolutionary, but I think it's really cool. Pardon a lame paraphrasing of a tired idea, but if we stop using our email any way we like, the spammers have won. ;-)
How the hell does a guy who opens with a fart joke get moderated so high?
... they automatically assume that I wan't to be a programmer or an engineer.
Main Entry: 1 wan't
Pronunciation: 'wont also 'want &'w&nt
Function: contraction
Etymology: Early 21st century American English, poplurized online by wannabe systems administrators
1: contracion of "wall not", as in "My mom wants me to go to college, but I wan't! I'm going to be an u1tr@ LeEt sy$@dm1n!"
----
My advice: more school.
The items on their lists may not fit the strict definition of vaporware, but they do tend to suffer from being over-publicized before being ready. That's worth our riducule, even if the software itself is still under development and later makes it to market.
Quality does matter, or else DVDs wouldn't be as popular as they are. The reason why DVDs aren't as popular as laserdisc is because they don't require compromises in order to get quality. They're not only of higher quality than VHS, but smaller, cheaper (to the producers, at least, which explains the big promotional push), and more feature rich.
I can't say whether Ogg will succeed, but it offers quality without any drawbacks, and therefore I think your argument is irrelevant.
The notion that without monetary incentive, musicians (or any artist) wouldn't produce is ridiculous, and it blows me away that people are so willing to parrot this idea. Music is an inherent part of human culture, has always been produced, and always will be. Artists' rights are an important part of the debate here, but let's not spout obviously absurd ideas.
You make a good point, but StarOffice (and others) compatability is still an issue. In an office environment, usually everyone has the exact same version of Office. So, when I mess up documents in SO, I'm the bad guy. =(
The facts they are using are not biased. The point of the article is that the software is preventing people from seeing legitimate sites. For the purposes of this study, it doesn't matter how much porn gets through, just how many things are inappropriately censored. Given that they are very clear about their methods, data, and conclusions, your accusation of bias is quite unfair.
Discussion response: Don't bother to explain it to the business people. They're not stupid, but they are in the business of making money. Explain it to your representatives. I know the passage of the DMCA has us all bitter, but representative democracy still works, especially if groups such as ourselves organize on the internet. Don't like the DMCA? Explain it to the EFF and ACLU, with your checkbook or your volunteer time. They will challenge the law in court, and they may very well be able to win.
For its part, 2600 simply removed the links to copies of DeCSS. But they left the non-HTML versions of the addresses intact, so visitors can simply copy and paste them into a browser window.
Making the ruling almost meaningless. The bottom line is that the technologists will always be one step ahead of the corporations, the lobbyists, the lawmakers and the courts. (Reference DeCSS, the endless Napster clones, the Cyberpatrol hack, the profusion of mirror sites anytime a court orders the removal of content from a website, etc.) As long as we, the creators of technology, remain commited to civil rights (and I think it is in the nature of such forward looking people to be so commited), then civil rights online will have a bright future.
I think there is no satisfactory answer to your question. The only thing which comes close is a full time monitor who has control of the mouse and keyboard at all times. However, this is rather contrary to the spirit of "surfing".
My ethical question for you is, "Why are you putting something which will almost certainly be used for porn at some point accross the street from a junior high school?" Whatever wizard solution you come up with, some kids are going to see some things which their parents wouldn't approve of. Why do we have to have internet access everywhere? Another poster compared putting internet access in schools and libraries to putting a freeway in a playground and he's got a point. Internet access is a powerful thing which requires significant responsibility, responsibility which we will hopefully instill in our children. But we had best think carefully about where and when we provide access.
I think your "Surf 'n' Wash" idea is great business idea, but it may be flawed ethically. If this bothers you, get another job. There's no shortage at this time. =)
"I'm not a criminal so I have nothing to worry about," seems awfully popular when discussing law enforcement monitoring. Just remember this. Laws change. Governments change. Agencies change. Even if you trust the FBI, the Congress, and the President today, are you confident that no U.S. government agency will become corrupt or abuse its power in the future.
Now hold on a minute. The original post was not entirely elegant, but it's not fair to say that it's necessarily wrong either. This issue is more complex than just pirates vs. decent folk. It is a conflict between the interests of copyright holders vs. the interests of the public. geekd is expressing a desire to get back at the media companies which have become so successful by charging the maximum the market will bear ($18/cd and $8/head/movie, last I checked). His solution is simply employing the same tactics. In other words, "lets get as much as we can". A solution to the current earthshaking effects of technology on intellectual property will have to find a compromise between both points of view. In the meantime, don't fault those who choose to employ the same tactics as the recording and film industries.
I agree that it would be great if Oxford would stand up to the MPAA, but it's not realistic. The fact that the case wouldn't stand up in court doesn't matter. It still takes many hours of preparation for a lawyer to demonstrate to a judge that the case has no merit. At the absurd rates that lawyers charge, it could be thousands of dollars. That is where the deep pockets of the corporations get their strength. They can win without being right, because their opponents usually can't afford to get to the point where the correct ruling is handed down.