I've seen Staroffice... it's no more "perfectly good" than Windows 95. Until recently it *wasn't* open source, and AFAIK it's still bloatware worse than anything MS ever produced. (I *NEVER* have had a reason to have more than two applications open at once... especially not data ones. Why the @#$ did staroffice force me to open the whole shebang at once?)
You have a "monopoly" on your name and identity. Since you're obviously against all forms of monopolies, how about I borrow your identity and then, oh, buy $50 million of banannas.
There are *SOME* times when a monopoly is a Good Thing. Trade Sectrets are like Patents, but you've got to make an effort to protect them... which I guess includes everything legal you can do.
Whoa, you're right! The US government can find out who you are, and... and...
Pour over what you've said, and, assuming you were a childhood bully to the president or something else big enough to get them to do this, find something you've done that was criminal and didn't violate the statue of frauds, and then bring you to court...
and then you can sue them for discriminitory prosecution.:)
The *BILL OF RIGHTS* was written to keep our gov't from the excesses of previous ones. Thus, the protections against those excesses are unncecessary.
IANAL, just a rabid egotistical netfreak.
Re:The Soviet way of thinking
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
> This point is basically made so often it's
> remarkable. Basically - if you are not guilty,
> you have nothing to hide, so you need have no
> fear of disclosing.
Just because it was "Soviet" doesn't mean that it isn't true. If you haven't done *anything* wrong, you *don't* have anything to hide. The problem is that the Soviets had SO MANY things that were "wrong," like free speach, disparaging the gov't, or religion.
> * If you earn an honest income, why should you
> hide it from the income tax officials? People
> shouldn't be free to just walk to an ATM and
> anonymously deposit/withdraw money or transfer
> it overseas in complete privacy - it could be
> illegal money.
You *don't* have the ability to deposit money anonymously. The only way that your money isn't tracked is if you are paid in cash--and even then, you've got to say where your money comes from to the IRS, so they can bill you fairly for the use of roads, police, military, and the rest of the gov't.
Don't even get me *STARTED* on how banking works.
> * If you lead an honest life, there's no need to
> hide behind the anonymity of your private doors.
> Why, in good societies like the old communist
> regimes, people DID lead honest lives, which is
> why they didn't mind officials walking in to
> make sure everything was OK. It brought
> responsibility back into the system. Recently,
> the Russian govt. has been trying to pass a law
> that permits officials to look at all internet
> communications - the tapping would be live, but
> they would actually look at material only after
> approval by a judge. Makes sense, since people
> won't post crap online.
You should be entitled to privacy. *HOWEVER*, it isn't protected except in a few very speicifc relationships (marriage, doctor, lawyer). What if you're enticing teenage girls into your house, and then drugging them, getting them pregnant, and sacraficing their child in a bloody satanic ritual? Should the gov't *NOT* be able to come in just because it's "privacy?"
> * If you conduct all your telephone
> conversations and correspondence responsibly and
> legally, you have nothing to fear from people
> tapping/reading into it. With the right to mail
> letters or use a phone, comes responsibility,
> such as not mailing death threats or harassing
> people.
> If communication is open and freely looked at,
> people will behave more responsibly instead of
> conducting stupid gossip or slander.
More to the point, if communication is accountable and you have the right to know who you're talking to, stupid gossip isn't shoved in your face.
And other of invasion of privacy, you *DON'T* have anything to fear from someone reading your mail--well, not if that someone's a law-abiding gov't official. (To catch the corrupt ones, well, there should be something for that.)
> I'm sure most of you have noticed that magazines
> are full of garbage. Quite a lot of that
> wouldn't be there if only the good stuff were
> permitted to be published.
>
> And so on, ad nauseum. I'm tired of the "If you
> have rights, you need to have responsibilities"
> argument when applied to speech/communication.
> No, if you have priviliges, you need to have
> responsibilities - such as driving a car.
Wrong. You have the right to punch. You have the responsibility not to hit someone. You have the right to speak about someone. You have the responsibility to not purposefully say harmful falsehoods.
You have the right to enter into a contract; you have the responsibility to follow that contract. You have the right to make sure the other side is following that contract; you have the responsibility to do so only in a reasonable and fair manner.
> Besides, if we didn't have the freedom to create
> the 99% trash that people publish/post/write,
> much of the world's great literature/music/art
> would not exist.
Yeah, if it wasn't for the lack of suffering and free expression of any trite idea, we'd never have the great plays of Bob which parodied the Queen... no, wait, we *DID* have restriction of art in the Renaissance. And yet, our greatest works of art still arose, because only those who were willing to put themselves on the line for their art did so. and their art got recognized.
Shakesphere didn't write plays to be a figure in history. He wrote them so he could perform them, and so that he could pay his bills.
First Amdendment, my friend
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
Ah-ha!
Yes, anonymnity is a great shield when there is an oppression against new ideas.
However, this should only go far enough to get those ideas read--no more.
Why? Becasue we have the First Amendment, which binds the US Congress (and through, IIRC, the 14th all the states) to not make any laws restricting the expression of the people.
The rationale of hiding from the government is wrong... and the rationale of hiding your identity is still valid, as the act of anyomnity is still legal...
but it isn't a protected right, and can be pierced by those wondering if someone has violated a legal and binding agreement in which they voluntarily renounced some part of their first amendment right.
Military types are bound by contract (among other things) against speaking about secrets, which is a repression of the 1st but a voluntary one. High-paid employees may very well have done the same, and should be bound by that agreement until a court rules their contract void/voidable for some act of the corporation.
Trust the courts; if you don't, you've either got to trust a herd or a politician, or no one at all!
And in all cases, if there is a breach of duty (civil or criminal) then you are compelled to come forward.
A anonymous letter is just a "tip off", and doesn't mean anything. You'll be *LUCKY* if they even read it.
An anonymous book is made by a deal with a publisher.
*ELECTRONIC* anonyminity is something else entirely--the scale is simply far above the acceptable limit, and the "right" has been abused to the point of absurdity.
Re:Hacking the Legal System
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
US corporations are *bound* by all sorts of rights. In fact, AFAIK they are bound by *exactly* the same responsibilities that bind a private citizen. They have to pay taxes. They have to abide by their contracts. They have to exercise due care in their dealings.
And while a rich corporation may ruin someone's life without consequence, so can a rich person. If it's just a bad deal, then it isn't murder. If it is murder--well, the corporation gets raped as the gov't searches for the murderers.
BTW, if you don't think that you have the right to manipulate the legal system to the full extent of your ability to do so, would you mind voting for who I tell you to? I mean, since you're not using it anyway... (Yay, flamebait!)
Selling it would be as easy as buying it--you just register "selling this CD", or even go to the database, bring up your entry, and delete that CD.
RIAA (or whoever) could even justify it as a way to gather consumer info... and the consumers benefit by being able to give feedback about the music they don't like, and that they do.
Otherwise they wouldn't need to write a law to allow it.
Imagine that you order a milkshake from an ice cream shop, and they make them two-at-once. One half of the batch is given to you, and the other half of the batch is kept behind the counter.
You can do whatever you want with your milkshake, but you can't touch the other one--even though they're the "exact same milkshake."
Of course, the "milkshake" here is bottomless, but the law is filled with this kind of grandfathered sillyness. Blame the world for changing, not the law for remaining just what we want it (slow to change.)
(And no, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not a doctor, a politician, or a programmer. Of course, I might be a God...)
No fan has "lost" anything they have a legitimate right to. They can still go out and buy music, or trade with all their friends they made on napster, or grab one of the other services.
The RIAA / artists obviously haven't lost anything.
The indie musicians were getting questionable value from Napster from anyone's viewpoint, so they really haven't lost anything.
Signed artists who want their MP3s distributed... well, they can get a website!
The only people who are "real losers" are Napster stockholders and employees. They're losing their gravy train, becasue they haven't fixed the problem (no way to stop piracy yet) or expanded into a more legitimate market (general file-swapping?)
Remember that last really successful mars mission? (Pathfinder, I think it was called.) THAT was dropped on mars by the "Airbag device."
It was done before, and it's a LOT cheaper than, say, retro-rockets. (No oceans on mars, no runways, and the atmosphere's so thin... gotta have SOMETHING to stop with)
Consider yourself flamed. I haven't a single MP3 at home that isn't freely distributable or off a CD I own.
I also have never used Napster.
Re:Napsters is a Service, not a Product
on
Two-Faced Napster?
·
· Score: 1
Death threats on Slashdot--well, if/. does anything to encourage that sort of thing (they don't), YES!
If you posted a "Download MS Windows for free!" on/., and/. slapped it as their head news story, I think they'd be liable--maybe not as much as you, but enough for MS to shut down/.
As for illegal content on an ISP's webpage--there's a law that exempts them from that. Just like it's illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.
The law is full of exceptions. In this case, the general rule has Napster @#$ed. Napster's lawyers are probably looking for an exception to keep them out, while RIAA is looking for exceptions to those exceptions.
Re:Napsters is a Service, not a Product
on
Two-Faced Napster?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly right, Zebbers. Of course, the question before the courts is
"Does Napster do all that it must to not promote illegal activity?" / "Is Napster promoting illegal activity?"
And THIS is why Gnutella / Freenet won't.
on
Two-Faced Napster?
·
· Score: 1
Napster came up with a great innovation--and put it to a less-than-squeaky-clean use. Their serviced ticked off artists, the artists got their corporation in on the fight, and Napster's off to court.
Gnutella / Freenet arose from the "ashes" of Napster, but they won't "win" because of some grand decentralization theme--if the RIAA / gov't wanted to, they could shut them down. (Imagine a special, temporary court, JUST to issue orders to stop Gnutella servers and hear appeals...)
The reason Gnutella and Freenet won't go down isn't some lack of centralization, but rather that they'll wise up and focus on the legitimate uses of the software. The copyright owners will stay hard on servers that steal their cash cows, and eventually a happy medium will be reached.
REMEMBER: Metallica bootlegs were, are, and always will be fair game to distribute--as long as they're not right-from-the album, the band encourages copying.
IANAL, but... Water-pipes / bongs, hampsters, and PCs are all products. Provided they have a legal purpose, the merchant shouldn't be liable for their use illegall. But Napster isn't a product, it's a service. They don't just ship software--they maintain a network, and act as a SERVICE. If I run a bar and promote prostitution, I'm liable. If I drive a car and offer to help criminals "getaway", I'm liable. The same principle can apply to Napster, but it seems like a fuzzy area... which is why RIAA vs Napster is one of those cases that SHOULD go to the courts.
> Overall, Mr. Barry says there is nothing > hypocritical or contradictory in Napster's > handling of these matters. "We respect > copyrights, but differ with the music industry > about their scope," he says. "And we will > enforce our copyrights wherever we think we > should. It's a perfectly consistent approach."
There's nothing consistent with usurping another's copyrights ("Oh, go ahead and trade that music against the artist's permission!") and then freaking when someone does the same to do.
Whatever the fate of copyright / copyleft / fair use, it won't be a double standard--be it software or music or Stephen King's new novel, any "copyrightable" material should be treated by the same law.
No, not AD&D--D20, the "engine" that's behind the new 3rd edition of "Dungeons and Dragons" that's out next month, and the new Star Wars game (Yes, WotC got the license after WEG lost it) that's out in November.
To learn more about 3e, you could go to the offical WotC site at http://www.wizards.com/ or go to the "rumors" page at the following link.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah!
I've seen Staroffice... it's no more "perfectly good" than Windows 95. Until recently it *wasn't* open source, and AFAIK it's still bloatware worse than anything MS ever produced. (I *NEVER* have had a reason to have more than two applications open at once... especially not data ones. Why the @#$ did staroffice force me to open the whole shebang at once?)
Ok, that was my reason for not having Linux on The_Box, the laptop that I carry everywhere...
:)
Now all I have to do is find a way to get Linux on it, and see how the darn thing works.
Yay!
You have a "monopoly" on your name and identity. Since you're obviously against all forms of monopolies, how about I borrow your identity and then, oh, buy $50 million of banannas.
There are *SOME* times when a monopoly is a Good Thing. Trade Sectrets are like Patents, but you've got to make an effort to protect them... which I guess includes everything legal you can do.
and Alice can take action against Bob's Widgets...
* Discriminitory Prosecution (even if she *ISN'T* revealed, if it isn't slander and she has to go to court to defend herself...)
* Unfair termination. There *are* laws that govern even "at will" employment.
Whoa, you're right! The US government can find out who you are, and... and...
:)
Pour over what you've said, and, assuming you were a childhood bully to the president or something else big enough to get them to do this, find something you've done that was criminal and didn't violate the statue of frauds, and then bring you to court...
and then you can sue them for discriminitory prosecution.
The *BILL OF RIGHTS* was written to keep our gov't from the excesses of previous ones. Thus, the protections against those excesses are unncecessary.
IANAL, just a rabid egotistical netfreak.
> This point is basically made so often it's
> remarkable. Basically - if you are not guilty,
> you have nothing to hide, so you need have no
> fear of disclosing.
Just because it was "Soviet" doesn't mean that it isn't true. If you haven't done *anything* wrong, you *don't* have anything to hide. The problem is that the Soviets had SO MANY things that were "wrong," like free speach, disparaging the gov't, or religion.
> * If you earn an honest income, why should you
> hide it from the income tax officials? People
> shouldn't be free to just walk to an ATM and
> anonymously deposit/withdraw money or transfer
> it overseas in complete privacy - it could be
> illegal money.
You *don't* have the ability to deposit money anonymously. The only way that your money isn't tracked is if you are paid in cash--and even then, you've got to say where your money comes from to the IRS, so they can bill you fairly for the use of roads, police, military, and the rest of the gov't.
Don't even get me *STARTED* on how banking works.
> * If you lead an honest life, there's no need to
> hide behind the anonymity of your private doors.
> Why, in good societies like the old communist
> regimes, people DID lead honest lives, which is
> why they didn't mind officials walking in to
> make sure everything was OK. It brought
> responsibility back into the system. Recently,
> the Russian govt. has been trying to pass a law
> that permits officials to look at all internet
> communications - the tapping would be live, but
> they would actually look at material only after
> approval by a judge. Makes sense, since people
> won't post crap online.
You should be entitled to privacy. *HOWEVER*, it isn't protected except in a few very speicifc relationships (marriage, doctor, lawyer). What if you're enticing teenage girls into your house, and then drugging them, getting them pregnant, and sacraficing their child in a bloody satanic ritual? Should the gov't *NOT* be able to come in just because it's "privacy?"
> * If you conduct all your telephone
> conversations and correspondence responsibly and
> legally, you have nothing to fear from people
> tapping/reading into it. With the right to mail
> letters or use a phone, comes responsibility,
> such as not mailing death threats or harassing
> people.
> If communication is open and freely looked at,
> people will behave more responsibly instead of
> conducting stupid gossip or slander.
More to the point, if communication is accountable and you have the right to know who you're talking to, stupid gossip isn't shoved in your face.
And other of invasion of privacy, you *DON'T* have anything to fear from someone reading your mail--well, not if that someone's a law-abiding gov't official. (To catch the corrupt ones, well, there should be something for that.)
> I'm sure most of you have noticed that magazines
> are full of garbage. Quite a lot of that
> wouldn't be there if only the good stuff were
> permitted to be published.
>
> And so on, ad nauseum. I'm tired of the "If you
> have rights, you need to have responsibilities"
> argument when applied to speech/communication.
> No, if you have priviliges, you need to have
> responsibilities - such as driving a car.
Wrong. You have the right to punch. You have the responsibility not to hit someone. You have the right to speak about someone. You have the responsibility to not purposefully say harmful falsehoods.
You have the right to enter into a contract; you have the responsibility to follow that contract. You have the right to make sure the other side is following that contract; you have the responsibility to do so only in a reasonable and fair manner.
> Besides, if we didn't have the freedom to create
> the 99% trash that people publish/post/write,
> much of the world's great literature/music/art
> would not exist.
Yeah, if it wasn't for the lack of suffering and free expression of any trite idea, we'd never have the great plays of Bob which parodied the Queen... no, wait, we *DID* have restriction of art in the Renaissance. And yet, our greatest works of art still arose, because only those who were willing to put themselves on the line for their art did so. and their art got recognized.
Shakesphere didn't write plays to be a figure in history. He wrote them so he could perform them, and so that he could pay his bills.
Ah-ha!
Yes, anonymnity is a great shield when there is an oppression against new ideas.
However, this should only go far enough to get those ideas read--no more.
Why? Becasue we have the First Amendment, which binds the US Congress (and through, IIRC, the 14th all the states) to not make any laws restricting the expression of the people.
The rationale of hiding from the government is wrong... and the rationale of hiding your identity is still valid, as the act of anyomnity is still legal...
but it isn't a protected right, and can be pierced by those wondering if someone has violated a legal and binding agreement in which they voluntarily renounced some part of their first amendment right.
Military types are bound by contract (among other things) against speaking about secrets, which is a repression of the 1st but a voluntary one. High-paid employees may very well have done the same, and should be bound by that agreement until a court rules their contract void/voidable for some act of the corporation.
Trust the courts; if you don't, you've either got to trust a herd or a politician, or no one at all!
And in all cases, if there is a breach of duty (civil or criminal) then you are compelled to come forward.
A anonymous letter is just a "tip off", and doesn't mean anything. You'll be *LUCKY* if they even read it.
An anonymous book is made by a deal with a publisher.
*ELECTRONIC* anonyminity is something else entirely--the scale is simply far above the acceptable limit, and the "right" has been abused to the point of absurdity.
US corporations are *bound* by all sorts of rights. In fact, AFAIK they are bound by *exactly* the same responsibilities that bind a private citizen. They have to pay taxes. They have to abide by their contracts. They have to exercise due care in their dealings.
And while a rich corporation may ruin someone's life without consequence, so can a rich person. If it's just a bad deal, then it isn't murder. If it is murder--well, the corporation gets raped as the gov't searches for the murderers.
BTW, if you don't think that you have the right to manipulate the legal system to the full extent of your ability to do so, would you mind voting for who I tell you to? I mean, since you're not using it anyway... (Yay, flamebait!)
Hey, that's a good idea.
Selling it would be as easy as buying it--you just register "selling this CD", or even go to the database, bring up your entry, and delete that CD.
RIAA (or whoever) could even justify it as a way to gather consumer info... and the consumers benefit by being able to give feedback about the music they don't like, and that they do.
Otherwise they wouldn't need to write a law to allow it.
Imagine that you order a milkshake from an ice cream shop, and they make them two-at-once. One half of the batch is given to you, and the other half of the batch is kept behind the counter.
You can do whatever you want with your milkshake, but you can't touch the other one--even though they're the "exact same milkshake."
Of course, the "milkshake" here is bottomless, but the law is filled with this kind of grandfathered sillyness. Blame the world for changing, not the law for remaining just what we want it (slow to change.)
(And no, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not a doctor, a politician, or a programmer. Of course, I might be a God...)
No fan has "lost" anything they have a legitimate right to. They can still go out and buy music, or trade with all their friends they made on napster, or grab one of the other services.
The RIAA / artists obviously haven't lost anything.
The indie musicians were getting questionable value from Napster from anyone's viewpoint, so they really haven't lost anything.
Signed artists who want their MP3s distributed... well, they can get a website!
The only people who are "real losers" are Napster stockholders and employees. They're losing their gravy train, becasue they haven't fixed the problem (no way to stop piracy yet) or expanded into a more legitimate market (general file-swapping?)
I know. But we DO exist, so, ah, er...
PHBBT!!!!!
(and I even have a cable modem...)
Remember that last really successful mars mission? (Pathfinder, I think it was called.) THAT was dropped on mars by the "Airbag device."
It was done before, and it's a LOT cheaper than, say, retro-rockets. (No oceans on mars, no runways, and the atmosphere's so thin... gotta have SOMETHING to stop with)
Consider yourself flamed. I haven't a single MP3 at home that isn't freely distributable or off a CD I own.
I also have never used Napster.
Death threats on Slashdot--well, if /. does anything to encourage that sort of thing (they don't), YES!
/., and /. slapped it as their head news story, I think they'd be liable--maybe not as much as you, but enough for MS to shut down /.
If you posted a "Download MS Windows for free!" on
As for illegal content on an ISP's webpage--there's a law that exempts them from that. Just like it's illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.
The law is full of exceptions. In this case, the general rule has Napster @#$ed. Napster's lawyers are probably looking for an exception to keep them out, while RIAA is looking for exceptions to those exceptions.
Exactly right, Zebbers. Of course, the question before the courts is
"Does Napster do all that it must to not promote illegal activity?" / "Is Napster promoting illegal activity?"
Napster came up with a great innovation--and put it to a less-than-squeaky-clean use. Their serviced ticked off artists, the artists got their corporation in on the fight, and Napster's off to court.
Gnutella / Freenet arose from the "ashes" of Napster, but they won't "win" because of some grand decentralization theme--if the RIAA / gov't wanted to, they could shut them down. (Imagine a special, temporary court, JUST to issue orders to stop Gnutella servers and hear appeals...)
The reason Gnutella and Freenet won't go down isn't some lack of centralization, but rather that they'll wise up and focus on the legitimate uses of the software. The copyright owners will stay hard on servers that steal their cash cows, and eventually a happy medium will be reached.
REMEMBER: Metallica bootlegs were, are, and always will be fair game to distribute--as long as they're not right-from-the album, the band encourages copying.
IANAL, but... Water-pipes / bongs, hampsters, and PCs are all products. Provided they have a legal purpose, the merchant shouldn't be liable for their use illegall. But Napster isn't a product, it's a service. They don't just ship software--they maintain a network, and act as a SERVICE. If I run a bar and promote prostitution, I'm liable. If I drive a car and offer to help criminals "getaway", I'm liable. The same principle can apply to Napster, but it seems like a fuzzy area... which is why RIAA vs Napster is one of those cases that SHOULD go to the courts.
> Overall, Mr. Barry says there is nothing
> hypocritical or contradictory in Napster's
> handling of these matters. "We respect
> copyrights, but differ with the music industry
> about their scope," he says. "And we will
> enforce our copyrights wherever we think we
> should. It's a perfectly consistent approach."
There's nothing consistent with usurping another's copyrights ("Oh, go ahead and trade that music against the artist's permission!") and then freaking when someone does the same to do.
Whatever the fate of copyright / copyleft / fair use, it won't be a double standard--be it software or music or Stephen King's new novel, any "copyrightable" material should be treated by the same law.
No, not AD&D--D20, the "engine" that's behind the new 3rd edition of "Dungeons and Dragons" that's out next month, and the new Star Wars game (Yes, WotC got the license after WEG lost it) that's out in November.
To learn more about 3e, you could go to the offical WotC site at http://www.wizards.com/ or go to the "rumors" page at the following link.
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/
There's also a "Star Wars Rumors Page" at
http://dkphoenix.freeservers.com/starwars/
but it's not all that inclusive yet.