I hate to borrow from Libertarian philosophy, but a right is not a right if you require coercion of another person.
Copyright is nothing but a government granted monopoly. Wake up! If the government does not coerce people *not* to copy your stuff, then copyright doesn't exist.
Libertarianism requires government non-interference into the marketplace. Copyright is a direct intervention into the marketplace. Despite the fact that its intentions are good, it does not work, and it causes a whole heap of coercion along the way.
Property rights make some sense when they are attached to items that are scarce. Information, however, is not naturally scarce (although the ability to create it may be). Would libertarian ethics allow other sorts of interventions into the marketplace to guarantee innovation? For instance, what if it was found that better music would be created if only people with masters degrees in composition (or licensed students) were allowed to create music. Think of how much crappy music wouldn't get made if you needed 6 years of school and a license before you could strum an A chord! Is this a legitimate type of coercion? Think!
Here's the first and most important one: if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?
If their answer is "no", then the dispute with Tim is over.
I think there's another option that ESR ignores: Kuhn and Stallman would probably want proprietary licenses ruled invalid as opposed to illegal in the "haul you off to jail' sense. This ensures that no one has power over anyone else because there are no restrictions on anyone's use of any ideas. You can still offer people the license, but it would be just as valid as a contract that offers them $1,000,000.00 for the right to enslave them when they turn 30. Some "freedoms" are not worth protecting, and some contracts should never be valid.
What is needed is involvement at any level we can afford. The more that users are involved in any endeavor that involves them the better, generally, that endeavor does.
I think Napster's experience disproves this theorem. A better way of stating it might be "The more money is behind an endeavor the better, generally, that endeavor does. A riddle: what's the functional difference between truth and marketing dollars?
A lot of bad laws have stuck around for longer than the DMCA has yet, but the more this kind of analysis is seen, the sooner sanity can be restored.
tar -xvzf dmca.tar.gz
cd dmca ./configure
creating cache./config.cache
checking for extra includes... no
checking for extra libs... no
checking for a BSD compatible install.../usr/bin/install -c
checking whether legal environment is sane... no
*Exit with error code 1
You may find it extreme, but I do believe that once that egg and sperm combine, life begins -- that life has been tuned to receive the Great Radio Signal of the Soul, if you will.
I won't. You'll have to explain your "radio theory of the soul" a little better. Not that I totally disagree with your conclusion, but your premise makes me uncomfortable- making rules on the basis of "these cells together tune in to the radio of the soul" begs at least this question: why is it that the reception ain't so great for the first few years? Furthermore, think of all the "tuning in to the soul network" we could be doing if we didn't waste all those eggs and sperm cells- isn't that wrong in your worldview? If not, why?
Yeah, I agree. People should definitely read their TOS. You're lucky companies are willing to sell you products at all you snivelling worms. And all those people who don't consult their lawyer to discover the true meaning of the click-wrap licenses they open. Stupid consumers! Let's review:
1. if a company offers a service and limits it arbitrarily, you have no right to complain. You are lower than the excrement of a dung beetle.
2. if you think the "Inter" in "Internet" implies that two way communication ought to occur, you should be locked up with all those free software loons in the nearest insane asylum post-haste.
3. Being a "user" means never having to set up a webserver. Corporations own all media, and don't you forget it, "user".
bah, I'm feeling especially cranky now. I'm going to eat a dung beetle as soon as possible.
Prediction: The court will provide a temporary injunction allowing XP to be put on the market until they make a decision. Then they won't make a decision until Bush is crowned President^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Windows XP is actually released into the wild and the issue becomes moot.
Microsoft is just playing the game to prevent the gov. from stopping the release of XP. Once XP is out there, it can't be taken back. If Mircrosoft is forced to play fairly only after XP is released, it's more bad news for the rest of us.
Unfortunately, deciding on issues only after they have become moot seems to be the habit of this Supreme Court. I had an example, but I can't seem to recall- maybe I"m still in denial...
Actually, I got that account before Microsoft owned hotmail, and furthermore I see no contradiction in using up Microsft's mailserver space in an effort to counter their dominance- quite the contrary, why not use their resources to end their dirty practices? It's not like I click on their ads and create revenue for them.
If there is such an archive, please let me know! If not, there ought to be - this stuff is pure gold. It may not be obvious, but every single threat of anti-piracy enforcement is free marketing for Free Software! This is a compelling business case to make the switch from comfortable, proprietary software to somewhat unfamiliar Free (as in speech) software - especially for small businesses who might be destroyed by just the audit process, not to mention possible penalties for non-compliance.
I have heard that in some places, software companies are placing advertisements with the message "use pirated software/go to jail for 10 years". A well documented collection of these sorts of threats would be a great resource for those trying to promote free software and related services.
If no such archive exists, I would be willing to host such an archive. Email me at db8coach@hotnospampleasemail.com if you have a url or related anecdote. Pictures of ads, scans of letters, whatever.
At some point, each of us has hated the US legal system and the evils it produces. Then you see something brilliant, simple, and reasonable like this and it all seems worth it. Maybe.:^)
I kind of agree. I've been thinking more and more that law is like code. But think about this: this is sort of like garbage collection (removing copyright monopoly allocations) by a process with higher priority (The New York Times) than yours (citizen).
When you find an injustice without a higher priority process to take up the argument, you have a serious memory leak that is undetected by litigative garbage collection initiated by your weak citizen process. Which leads some of us to think it would be better to carefully manage the allocation of copyright monopolies (memory) in the first place.
If the mobs never rise up, the Courts can safely ignore the will of the people. Courts are a buffer to slow down the social change demanded by the people, for better or for ill, but it's wrong to think that the mob is not a check on their power, it's just not officially enshrined in the law.
I think you view the law as real in and of itself, when it's really just a system for managing power relationships and politics.
Here's a reality check for you. This guy is in JAIL. In a foreign country. He came here, as a graduate student, to give a talk at a conference, and he's been arrested and jailed and so far as we know unable to contact his family.
The reality check is that your distinction doesn't matter- the fact that they are aware of the situation and *have not yet dropped* the charges is sufficient cause for alarm.
I think the point you make, that he was selling rather than simply presenting an academic paper, is an interesting one. But if there is one lesson to be learned from this, it is that impressions are far more important than facts in PR battles. This looks like a win for the EFF and anti-copyright folks everywhere not because Sklyarov is pure as the driven snow, but because his arrest happened in the context of an academic presentation. With 2600 magazine, the press had no way to describe these folks but as hackers, which put them on the defensive from the start against the well-polished MPAA, run by Valenti and his cronies. However, in the Felten case as in this one, people's impression is not that someone is profiting from mischief, but that the legitimate investigation of facts is being hindered by greedy corporations. That's why you never see any serious legal action against David Touretzky's mirrors of De-CSS on his website at CMU. It's suicide, from a PR perspective to attack someone whose motives are so purely free from profit. The fact that Sklyarov stood to profit (or rather, the corporation that employed him stood to profit) is just as irrelevant to the debate as the fact that the public doesn't understand what the folks from 2600 mean when they call themselves hackers. This is an important lesson for those of us who don't like the direction this country is going. The Ivory Tower of Academia may shield one from the realities of politics in a very important way.
Dude, without a means of resolving jurisdictional disputes, we'd have a heck of a time getting deep into any discussion. T violations are debate's way of moderating -1 off-topic (like this post:) T violations are sometimes applied frivolously, as are lawsuits, but they are not always bad, just like lawsuits.
In fact, you may not realize it but the stock issues in academic policy debate (Solvency, Harm, Inherency, Topicality, Significance- SHITS) were created with a judicial paradigm in mind. It was thought that these would be the standards by which debate cases would be proven, much like "reasonable doubt" and "premeditation" are important standards for trying murder cases.
Their website says 'except as provided in the licenses of individual components' or somesuch, so theoretically the GPL trumps their whole EULA. But to be sure, this is at least very confusing.
Stock tickers. They do pretty much exactly what this guy describes. Observe this portion of the patent:
28. The method of claim 27 wherein the material object is defined further as being selected from a group consisting of: audio tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; audio disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; video tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; video disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; media capable of having fixed thereon information in the form of printed matter (words, symbols and or pictures); devices capable of having fixed therein inforamtion in the form of digital data; or combinations thereof.
(emphasis mine)
Even if this person has a valid patent, this is one of those times where, for the good of the world, you have a moral responsibility to just let it go.
Dr. Dre is actually the head of a secret world government. That's why Metallica took so much heat over this- not because Lars is such a weenie, but because they just don't have any pull in Dre's administration.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is nothing but a government granted monopoly. Wake up! If the government does not coerce people *not* to copy your stuff, then copyright doesn't exist.
Libertarianism requires government non-interference into the marketplace. Copyright is a direct intervention into the marketplace. Despite the fact that its intentions are good, it does not work, and it causes a whole heap of coercion along the way.
Property rights make some sense when they are attached to items that are scarce. Information, however, is not naturally scarce (although the ability to create it may be). Would libertarian ethics allow other sorts of interventions into the marketplace to guarantee innovation? For instance, what if it was found that better music would be created if only people with masters degrees in composition (or licensed students) were allowed to create music. Think of how much crappy music wouldn't get made if you needed 6 years of school and a license before you could strum an A chord! Is this a legitimate type of coercion? Think!
Bryguy
Here's the first and most important one: if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it? If their answer is "no", then the dispute with Tim is over.
I think there's another option that ESR ignores: Kuhn and Stallman would probably want proprietary licenses ruled invalid as opposed to illegal in the "haul you off to jail' sense. This ensures that no one has power over anyone else because there are no restrictions on anyone's use of any ideas. You can still offer people the license, but it would be just as valid as a contract that offers them $1,000,000.00 for the right to enslave them when they turn 30. Some "freedoms" are not worth protecting, and some contracts should never be valid.
Bryguy
You can still get fp, you just have to know how to subtract to be sure :)
ask the warden for a tin mug. Then clang it against the bars anytime you need some audio stimulation - it can get pretty bleak in there.
:0
Bryguy
I think Napster's experience disproves this theorem. A better way of stating it might be "The more money is behind an endeavor the better, generally, that endeavor does. A riddle: what's the functional difference between truth and marketing dollars?
Sadly,
Bryguy
tar -xvzf dmca.tar.gz
./configure ./config.cache /usr/bin/install -c
cd dmca
creating cache
checking for extra includes... no
checking for extra libs... no
checking for a BSD compatible install...
checking whether legal environment is sane... no
*Exit with error code 1
I won't. You'll have to explain your "radio theory of the soul" a little better. Not that I totally disagree with your conclusion, but your premise makes me uncomfortable- making rules on the basis of "these cells together tune in to the radio of the soul" begs at least this question: why is it that the reception ain't so great for the first few years? Furthermore, think of all the "tuning in to the soul network" we could be doing if we didn't waste all those eggs and sperm cells- isn't that wrong in your worldview? If not, why?
Bryguy
Yeah, I agree. People should definitely read their TOS. You're lucky companies are willing to sell you products at all you snivelling worms. And all those people who don't consult their lawyer to discover the true meaning of the click-wrap licenses they open. Stupid consumers! Let's review:
1. if a company offers a service and limits it arbitrarily, you have no right to complain. You are lower than the excrement of a dung beetle.
2. if you think the "Inter" in "Internet" implies that two way communication ought to occur, you should be locked up with all those free software loons in the nearest insane asylum post-haste.
3. Being a "user" means never having to set up a webserver. Corporations own all media, and don't you forget it, "user".
bah, I'm feeling especially cranky now. I'm going to eat a dung beetle as soon as possible.
Prediction: The court will provide a temporary injunction allowing XP to be put on the market until they make a decision. Then they won't make a decision until Bush is crowned President^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Windows XP is actually released into the wild and the issue becomes moot.
Sometimes politics is so depressing.
Bryguy
Unfortunately, deciding on issues only after they have become moot seems to be the habit of this Supreme Court. I had an example, but I can't seem to recall- maybe I"m still in denial...
Bryguy
I'm not convinced that the "croak and poke" strategy really represents a solution in this case.
Unless, that is, you could expedite the croaking somehow... Perhaps you could patent that process :^)
Bryguy
Actually, I got that account before Microsoft owned hotmail, and furthermore I see no contradiction in using up Microsft's mailserver space in an effort to counter their dominance- quite the contrary, why not use their resources to end their dirty practices? It's not like I click on their ads and create revenue for them.
Bryguy
No, I won't be hosting it on my crappy geocities page :)
Bryon
I have heard that in some places, software companies are placing advertisements with the message "use pirated software/go to jail for 10 years". A well documented collection of these sorts of threats would be a great resource for those trying to promote free software and related services.
If no such archive exists, I would be willing to host such an archive. Email me at db8coach@hotnospampleasemail.com if you have a url or related anecdote. Pictures of ads, scans of letters, whatever.
Bryon
I kind of agree. I've been thinking more and more that law is like code. But think about this: this is sort of like garbage collection (removing copyright monopoly allocations) by a process with higher priority (The New York Times) than yours (citizen).
When you find an injustice without a higher priority process to take up the argument, you have a serious memory leak that is undetected by litigative garbage collection initiated by your weak citizen process. Which leads some of us to think it would be better to carefully manage the allocation of copyright monopolies (memory) in the first place.
Bryon
If the mobs never rise up, the Courts can safely ignore the will of the people. Courts are a buffer to slow down the social change demanded by the people, for better or for ill, but it's wrong to think that the mob is not a check on their power, it's just not officially enshrined in the law.
I think you view the law as real in and of itself, when it's really just a system for managing power relationships and politics.
Bryon
Here's a reality check for you. This guy is in JAIL. In a foreign country. He came here, as a graduate student, to give a talk at a conference, and he's been arrested and jailed and so far as we know unable to contact his family.
The reality check is that your distinction doesn't matter- the fact that they are aware of the situation and *have not yet dropped* the charges is sufficient cause for alarm.
Bryon
Bryguy
The only safe way to view it is in an mirror:)
Bryguy
T-violations always suck
:) T violations are sometimes applied frivolously, as are lawsuits, but they are not always bad, just like lawsuits.
Dude, without a means of resolving jurisdictional disputes, we'd have a heck of a time getting deep into any discussion. T violations are debate's way of moderating -1 off-topic (like this post
In fact, you may not realize it but the stock issues in academic policy debate (Solvency, Harm, Inherency, Topicality, Significance- SHITS) were created with a judicial paradigm in mind. It was thought that these would be the standards by which debate cases would be proven, much like "reasonable doubt" and "premeditation" are important standards for trying murder cases.
But I digress.
Bryguy
Their website says 'except as provided in the licenses of individual components' or somesuch, so theoretically the GPL trumps their whole EULA. But to be sure, this is at least very confusing.
Bryguy
28. The method of claim 27 wherein the material object is defined further as being selected from a group consisting of: audio tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; audio disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of sound recordings; video tape capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; video disc capable of having fixed therein information in the form of pictures and or audio; media capable of having fixed thereon information in the form of printed matter (words, symbols and or pictures); devices capable of having fixed therein inforamtion in the form of digital data; or combinations thereof.
(emphasis mine)
Even if this person has a valid patent, this is one of those times where, for the good of the world, you have a moral responsibility to just let it go.
Bryguy
They already own .gov.
Bryguy
Dr. Dre is actually the head of a secret world government. That's why Metallica took so much heat over this- not because Lars is such a weenie, but because they just don't have any pull in Dre's administration.
That's why, bee-otch.
Bryguy:)
Kill-Illustrator!