It's a digital file! You're not lending anything! You're making a copy. all the data is being copied. You're just arbitrarily blocking access to someone.
We complain about "intellectual property" being confused with "property" but this is doing exactly the same thing. It's completely arbitrary, and the suggestion you should be able to lend electronic data makes as much sense as eternal copyright.
We don't need the same rights but we do need new rights. Ones that aren't available with physical media.
I agree with the sentiment, but have issues with most of your points.
Copyright doesn't work. It's unenforcible as is. The only way to deter people from file sharing seems to be heavily disproportionate punishments, which by their nature are inherently unfair.
Piracy is theft has the problem of being entirely an emotive argument. Piracy may or may not be wrong but it;s a different crime and parallels with theft distract from the argument.
Media is already distributed across the internet with or without DRM.
The thing is, people will pirate stuff if they don't think there's anything wrong with it, and if they're not making money, they don't see how anyone loses. We're hard-wired into a zero-sum way of thinking. You'll never convince the majority they're wrong. You need to do something else here.
Most people see it as a huge social benefit that they have such a wealth of media at such a small economic cost. You seem to be taking a much more Libertarian position, which is fair enough, but it's not a position that most of the world shares. For a proposal to gain traction, it needs to be at least palatable to the majority, who do see it as the government's job to make sure that Hollywood can make blockbusters.
I should also point out, In the case of the US, there is a clause in the constitution that does make it clear that this is the place of the government.
Copyright was always a practical mechanism.. The basic principle still makes some degree of sense. We share the income from copyrighted works with the creator. This encourages creators, and most* people accept it as reasonably fair.
Here's where things go a bit wrong.
Most people online give stuff away. They've been doing so since public had access to photocopiers but now internet distribution offers genuine competition for the traditional model.
People see things as a zero sum game. If they're not making a profit, then nobody is making a loss. Whether this is right or not is beside the point. It's how humanity sees things. For this reason we use bittorrent without any moral qualms.
We keep trying to apply concepts of relatively expensive typesetting and printing to digital distribution. It was a model that worked well for records, CDs, videos, DVDs and other physical media because the basic principle is the same. Author; set-up; print; distribute. Digital distribution is different. It's a case of author; distribute. The main point being that minimal print runs of a single copy are viable and the perceived cost is essentially zero.
Those who approve of copyright make exactly the same mistake. They want the right to sell, lend and do anything they could with a physical copy. This doesn't make sense!. A digital copy is different. Trying to shoehorn rights that make sense for a physical copy becomes illogical. Why do I no longer have access to the copy that I clearly have? Because I "lent" it to someone. Except I didn't lend it. I still have my copy. It's just been blocked.
So, we need a completely new system. We need a way to reward artists to encourage creativity. People will create without the reward, but nowhere near as much! Nobody is going to make Avatar unless they can get a good return. I liked Avatar! But the system also needs to take into account the inherent rights that digital distribution gives us.
I have no solution. I simply want to point out that we need to understand the problem.
* If you think this is unfair, I should point out you're not "most"
Maximum penalty for file sharing seems to have been $80,000 per mp3 in the Capitol v. Thomas case. Maximum possible statutory damages would be $150,000 per song. More than that and the plaintiff would have to actually show losses.
My connection to my router is only 54MB/s. I dare say I don't even get that. I have no idea what the overheads and inefficiencies are here..
Experience has shown that my connection speed plummets after a short download from usenet binaries. Nowhere near what anyone might consider abusive, unless they have a contention ration of about 500:1. There is a workaround but they might work out a way to block that as well.
Perhaps they don't want me using the connection for illegal purposes. That's fair enough but that's the only reason I want to use it.
What we really need here is a standard. I have no interest in a format war between Apple and Sony, each one locking me into one of two proprietary services.
Apple simply don't want others in their park. Just about any standard Apple has produced has been apple exclusive. There are a handful of exceptions (e.g. firewire) but the point is always to sell Apple hardware. It is after all, their whole point.
Sony has been shown to be willing to licence its technology. They've always had the problem of retaining too much control for their technology to become standard. Other companies aren't going to compete when one of their largest rivals controls the specification. The risk is too great. Unless Sony teams up with other electronics firms, and sets up an independent standards body. Perhaps they've learned their lesson.
Or, more precisely for us un the U.S., banning guns because they kill people.
The difference being that guns still have substnatial legitimate uses (home defence, target shooting). It's really hard to claim Newzbin2 has any legitimate purpose other than piracy.
I think a lot of the problem is that the Air Force Generals tend to be Fighter Jocks. They have a prejudice towards manned fighters.
To this outsider, drones look great! They're cheaper, don't have the design compromises of needing to hold a pilot, and you can send them on extremely high risk missions without having to risk the life of a pilot. But what do I know? I've never flown a jet fighter in a combat situation.
Re:Best comment in article:
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't the F35 use a combination of thrust vectoring and lift-fan? I'd have thought this would allow similar capabilities. Or am I missing something obvious here?
I've actually long been a proponent of "parking ticket" level fines for infringement. Not quite sure about the logistics of it, but if there was some way a rights holder could automatically bill you, a reasonable multiple of the value of the "work", possibly charging the downloader rather than the uploader, and with some very simple appeals process, then we'd be able to discourage copyright infringement, compensate the rights holder, and not unduly inconvenience someone for what amounts to mild naughtiness.
I have absolutely no idea how the appeals process would work, which is the real sticking point here.
The thing is, while I quite happily and shamelessly download stuff from the internet, I'm not quite sure it should be legal. I consider it a little anti-social to acquire too much media this way. As far as moral reprehensibility goes, I consider it to be equivalent to parking illegally. I'm quite happy to forgive someone who stops for 5 minutes and doesn't cause an obstruction, but don't think that this means we should abolish all parking restrictions.
I concur. I know 3 people (plus myself) who use usenet for and we only use it for the binaries groups. If the big usenet providers are shut down I will be a bit disappointed
There's really not a lot of incentive to use them when we have various discussion websites which offer pretty much the same functionality but have useful features such as user comment ranking, and anti-spam mechanisms.
True. But even then legally, a GPL violation is just a copyright violation. My point here being that even if they included, say, the entirety of an GPL'ed application, then the only people who'd have any standing to make any demands o release the source would be the copyright holders of that GPLed application.
It's too well known (lots of companies use this so you should probably google it before the interview), has a single answer and doesn't allow for creativity. If you just want to check people can write code then it's fine, but really my current job required me to learn two APIs, get them talking to each other, and come up with a complete structured OO design for a system.
I also need to understand the maths required for 3D geometry, and have an understanding of OpenGL. The basics of OpenGL can be learned on the job. The maths require a certain level of experience.
Fizzbuzz will in no way indicate whether a candidate can do all this. However, I do expect a developer with a few years experience to be able to do most of it.
Specialised skills (hardcore 3D, databases, networks, security etc.) are a lot harder to screen for.
They're pretty cheap when talking in terms of a hospital budget.. I think we're talking in terms of low thousands of pounds. The 3D print on demand companies are probably laughing all the way to the bank at the moment, and I have no problem with that. They're providing a service that people are willing to pay for, and offering it much cheaper than the alternatives.
Can the court - even a the best of times not very tech-savvy - be absolutely certain that this can be done reliably and permanently?
They're err-ing on the side of caution here. There's no reason that the prison has to give them a PS3 after all. If they have some sort of good behaviour rewards system in place, then they can find other rewards to offer.
Most likely in order to maintain order. Carrot and stick works better than just carrot. Be a good prisoner, and you get rewards. Misbehave, starts fights, and so on and the privileges get taken away. This should lead to more good prisoners and fewer fights.
And if prisoner shows that he can behave for small rewards then that suggests that maybe he can be rehabilitated.
Hard to beat flying from Spain to Morocco for only 7 EUR.
True. Hard to get as well though. I'm sure some people do, but even if you do manage to book when they're practically giving tickets away, avoiding all the additional charges is tricky.
Does the US still have premium international airlines?
It's the larger four/five-star airlines that are going to want the newest, funkiest aircraft. There's a lot more of those not in the US than in the US.
Apple can declare whatever version they choose to be "current". If all versions of their phone run the same OS, then they'll always be running the current version, even if they have a much more advanced development version. What is "current"
Also, "major version" is pretty arbitrary. Google could have considered Honeycomb and Ice Cream Sandwich to be incremental upgrades to Gingerbread. A better comparison would be the age of the current release rather than count of major version.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's wrong with stealing?
It's a digital file! You're not lending anything! You're making a copy. all the data is being copied. You're just arbitrarily blocking access to someone.
We complain about "intellectual property" being confused with "property" but this is doing exactly the same thing. It's completely arbitrary, and the suggestion you should be able to lend electronic data makes as much sense as eternal copyright.
We don't need the same rights but we do need new rights. Ones that aren't available with physical media.
I agree with the sentiment, but have issues with most of your points.
Copyright doesn't work. It's unenforcible as is. The only way to deter people from file sharing seems to be heavily disproportionate punishments, which by their nature are inherently unfair.
Piracy is theft has the problem of being entirely an emotive argument. Piracy may or may not be wrong but it;s a different crime and parallels with theft distract from the argument.
Media is already distributed across the internet with or without DRM.
The thing is, people will pirate stuff if they don't think there's anything wrong with it, and if they're not making money, they don't see how anyone loses. We're hard-wired into a zero-sum way of thinking. You'll never convince the majority they're wrong. You need to do something else here.
That's not the only solution to the problem.
Most people see it as a huge social benefit that they have such a wealth of media at such a small economic cost. You seem to be taking a much more Libertarian position, which is fair enough, but it's not a position that most of the world shares. For a proposal to gain traction, it needs to be at least palatable to the majority, who do see it as the government's job to make sure that Hollywood can make blockbusters.
I should also point out, In the case of the US, there is a clause in the constitution that does make it clear that this is the place of the government.
Here's where things go a bit wrong.
Those who approve of copyright make exactly the same mistake. They want the right to sell, lend and do anything they could with a physical copy. This doesn't make sense!. A digital copy is different. Trying to shoehorn rights that make sense for a physical copy becomes illogical. Why do I no longer have access to the copy that I clearly have? Because I "lent" it to someone. Except I didn't lend it. I still have my copy. It's just been blocked.
So, we need a completely new system. We need a way to reward artists to encourage creativity. People will create without the reward, but nowhere near as much! Nobody is going to make Avatar unless they can get a good return. I liked Avatar! But the system also needs to take into account the inherent rights that digital distribution gives us.
I have no solution. I simply want to point out that we need to understand the problem.
* If you think this is unfair, I should point out you're not "most"
On a campus, you only need one untrustworthy person to steal a bike
Maximum penalty for file sharing seems to have been $80,000 per mp3 in the Capitol v. Thomas case. Maximum possible statutory damages would be $150,000 per song. More than that and the plaintiff would have to actually show losses.
That's one solution.
Another solution is to get rid of the board, and appoint people with leadership. This has the potential to increase share prices considerably.
My connection to my router is only 54MB/s. I dare say I don't even get that. I have no idea what the overheads and inefficiencies are here..
Experience has shown that my connection speed plummets after a short download from usenet binaries. Nowhere near what anyone might consider abusive, unless they have a contention ration of about 500:1. There is a workaround but they might work out a way to block that as well.
Perhaps they don't want me using the connection for illegal purposes. That's fair enough but that's the only reason I want to use it.
What we really need here is a standard. I have no interest in a format war between Apple and Sony, each one locking me into one of two proprietary services.
Apple simply don't want others in their park. Just about any standard Apple has produced has been apple exclusive. There are a handful of exceptions (e.g. firewire) but the point is always to sell Apple hardware. It is after all, their whole point.
Sony has been shown to be willing to licence its technology. They've always had the problem of retaining too much control for their technology to become standard. Other companies aren't going to compete when one of their largest rivals controls the specification. The risk is too great. Unless Sony teams up with other electronics firms, and sets up an independent standards body. Perhaps they've learned their lesson.
Or, more precisely for us un the U.S., banning guns because they kill people.
The difference being that guns still have substnatial legitimate uses (home defence, target shooting). It's really hard to claim Newzbin2 has any legitimate purpose other than piracy.
I think a lot of the problem is that the Air Force Generals tend to be Fighter Jocks. They have a prejudice towards manned fighters.
To this outsider, drones look great! They're cheaper, don't have the design compromises of needing to hold a pilot, and you can send them on extremely high risk missions without having to risk the life of a pilot. But what do I know? I've never flown a jet fighter in a combat situation.
Doesn't the F35 use a combination of thrust vectoring and lift-fan? I'd have thought this would allow similar capabilities. Or am I missing something obvious here?
I agree. The statutory damages are stupid.
I've actually long been a proponent of "parking ticket" level fines for infringement. Not quite sure about the logistics of it, but if there was some way a rights holder could automatically bill you, a reasonable multiple of the value of the "work", possibly charging the downloader rather than the uploader, and with some very simple appeals process, then we'd be able to discourage copyright infringement, compensate the rights holder, and not unduly inconvenience someone for what amounts to mild naughtiness.
I have absolutely no idea how the appeals process would work, which is the real sticking point here.
The thing is, while I quite happily and shamelessly download stuff from the internet, I'm not quite sure it should be legal. I consider it a little anti-social to acquire too much media this way. As far as moral reprehensibility goes, I consider it to be equivalent to parking illegally. I'm quite happy to forgive someone who stops for 5 minutes and doesn't cause an obstruction, but don't think that this means we should abolish all parking restrictions.
I concur. I know 3 people (plus myself) who use usenet for and we only use it for the binaries groups. If the big usenet providers are shut down I will be a bit disappointed
There's really not a lot of incentive to use them when we have various discussion websites which offer pretty much the same functionality but have useful features such as user comment ranking, and anti-spam mechanisms.
True. But even then legally, a GPL violation is just a copyright violation. My point here being that even if they included, say, the entirety of an GPL'ed application, then the only people who'd have any standing to make any demands o release the source would be the copyright holders of that GPLed application.
I don't agree.
It's too well known (lots of companies use this so you should probably google it before the interview), has a single answer and doesn't allow for creativity. If you just want to check people can write code then it's fine, but really my current job required me to learn two APIs, get them talking to each other, and come up with a complete structured OO design for a system.
I also need to understand the maths required for 3D geometry, and have an understanding of OpenGL. The basics of OpenGL can be learned on the job. The maths require a certain level of experience.
Fizzbuzz will in no way indicate whether a candidate can do all this. However, I do expect a developer with a few years experience to be able to do most of it.
Specialised skills (hardcore 3D, databases, networks, security etc.) are a lot harder to screen for.
They're pretty cheap when talking in terms of a hospital budget.. I think we're talking in terms of low thousands of pounds. The 3D print on demand companies are probably laughing all the way to the bank at the moment, and I have no problem with that. They're providing a service that people are willing to pay for, and offering it much cheaper than the alternatives.
Can the court - even a the best of times not very tech-savvy - be absolutely certain that this can be done reliably and permanently?
They're err-ing on the side of caution here. There's no reason that the prison has to give them a PS3 after all. If they have some sort of good behaviour rewards system in place, then they can find other rewards to offer.
Most likely in order to maintain order. Carrot and stick works better than just carrot. Be a good prisoner, and you get rewards. Misbehave, starts fights, and so on and the privileges get taken away. This should lead to more good prisoners and fewer fights.
And if prisoner shows that he can behave for small rewards then that suggests that maybe he can be rehabilitated.
Hard to beat flying from Spain to Morocco for only 7 EUR.
True. Hard to get as well though. I'm sure some people do, but even if you do manage to book when they're practically giving tickets away, avoiding all the additional charges is tricky.
Last time I took Easyjet, the plane took off and landed in the right place at approximately the right time and didn't crash.
That is pretty much all I expect from a budget airline.
Does the US still have premium international airlines?
It's the larger four/five-star airlines that are going to want the newest, funkiest aircraft. There's a lot more of those not in the US than in the US.
Apple can declare whatever version they choose to be "current". If all versions of their phone run the same OS, then they'll always be running the current version, even if they have a much more advanced development version. What is "current"
Also, "major version" is pretty arbitrary. Google could have considered Honeycomb and Ice Cream Sandwich to be incremental upgrades to Gingerbread. A better comparison would be the age of the current release rather than count of major version.