Here's a witch hunt by the government to ban violent games
You can get the FTC report on violence in media from ftc.gov.
First off, the report is not about banning violent games. The report is about corporate responsibility. Specifically it says that the industry markets violent content to children, and that they haven't done enough to give parents information about the violent/sexual/etc content of movies, music and video games. (Some politicians have said that if the industry doesn't clean up its act, they will enact legislation mandating better labeling or something like that.)
I've been watching parts of the hearing on the report on C-SPAN. Interestingly, none of the movie executives invited to attend the hearing managed to show up. They were all overseas or unavailable. Anyway I saw the examination of 2 video game executives and 2 music executives. They made plain in their statements that they believed that they were not intentionally marketing to children, and that the ultimate responsibility for regulating what children see and hear rests with parents. The response to this was that the industry should do a better job of informing the public, through ratings systems and the like. There was no suggestion that censorship or bans be applied, and in any case any attempt to do so would likely be ruled unconstitutional.
In short, the report and the hearing were about corporate accountability for content. Whether or not you think violent content encourages violent behavior, (I don't,) it is important to many parents that they have reliable ratings systems so that they can make informed decisions about what their kids should and should not be exposed to. Additionally, it is hypocritical to rate certain content as inappropriate for children and then market that content to those self-same children. While I don't think that legislation is the means by which these things should be controlled, the industry should and must be responsible for their marketing practices and for producing a reliable and meaningful ratings system.
The Government wanted a loophole so it could start censoring the web, and now they have it
Like any other conspiracy theory, I think we should take this statement with a grain of salt. The law under consideration is the DMCA; it was Judge Kaplan who provided the interpretation of the First Amendment. While the DMCA may indeed violate the First Amendment as applied in this case, I don't think it's fair to say that the DMCA was intended to provide a legal loophole for all forms of censorship.
From now on all anyone needs is a "Compelling Reason" to have a specific piece of information censored
Actually I don't think that's quite accurate. The ruling says that suppressing the source code does not violate the First Amendment because it is the function of the information, rather than its content or message, that provides the "compelling reason." So for instance, one could not ban porn simply because we disagreed with nudity, but rather we would have to show that porn has a specific function that provides a compelling reason to suppress it. (If we take this argument to the logical extreme, porn's function is sexual arousal, and sexual arousal can lead to teen pregnancy, so that could provide the compelling reason. But that seems like a long shot.)
You "believe that's called capitalism? For people to decide after they have taken or copied
something whether, and how much, they are going to pay for it?
Perhaps "free market" is more what I mean. You are free to choose what supermarket to buy your eggs from. If one supermarket is giving eggs away free, why wouldn't you go there?
Similarly, when there are multiple sources from which to get your music -- regardless of who created the music first -- why would you buy a CD? For very good reasons: to support the artist, or to encourage him to produce more good music.
If Stephen King didn't think that people cared enough about his work to pay for it, would he offer it online, potentially for free?
There is no clause about "If you don't feel like paying for it, or think it's too expensive (even though you agreed to the price up front) then you don't have to pay".
If you call the plumber to do work for you, you are making an agreement with him -- you agree to pay him if he does the work. If you did not agree to that, he would not come.
I never asked Brittany Spears to record any music. Now that she has, I feel no particular obligation to reimburse her for her time -- not unless I find some value in what she has done. If a plumber comes into your house while you're at work, fixes your sink, then leaves a bill -- do you pay him? You never agreed to the work, you are not obligated to pay him. However, you may choose to do so, if he has done a good job. (Of course on the other hand you may choose to throw him in jail for breaking and entering -- the analogy is imperfect.)
Similarly, when an employer hires a worker, there is an agreement, a contract -- the worker agrees to do whatever work the the employer asks of him in return for monetary compensation. If the worker does not do a good job -- he gets fired. If the employer does not pay -- he gets sued.
The spirit of carnivore is good, the idea that they can target one potential criminal, and read all email pertaining to him in an attempt to arrest him is great. The FBI needs somthing like that.
The FBI has always relied on covert surveillance. Carnivore is not exactly new or ground-breaking. But one has to wonder at how effective ANY system of this sort would be against technically-adept individuals. How many people who want to evade surveillance would email in plain text? Strong cryptography is frightening to the government precisely because they don't (yet) have a way to stop it. It seems to me that anyone who wished to evade detection could do so -- but I'm no expert in these matters.
The Freenetmailing lists have interesting discussions on these topics, mainly because Freenet's design goals include anonymity and untraceability.
The letter though, says only the FBI gets a good look at the code, and they can impliment it anywhere, anytime, on anybody, without any notice.
I don't think that's strictly speaking true. Mostly, police surveillance in this country requires some strong indication of wrong-doing. The Fourth Amendment provides for protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." I don't have any specifics regarding Carnivore but I would assume (hope) that monitoring everyone all the time would constitute an unreasonable search or seizure.
...it'd be nice to see the government at least attempt to follow with current trends and opensource the carnivore program.
It is not in the government's best interest to open source it -- even though it may be in ours.
That was a mistake from the start, their PR department is getting spanked by the public...
Yes, a PR nightmare, assuming anyone is listening. I haven't seen it on network television lately.
I'm sure ISP's wouldn't mind adapting the software as a government-provided-spam-blocker, we spend enough money as it is trying spam email cases as it is.
I don't know about spam-blocker, but as for voluntary ISP participation... It seems unlikely to me that ISP's would volunteer to be the bad guy unless it was in their best interest, ie, to avoid lawsuits or prosecution. Customers certainly wouldn't appreciate it. We get annoyed when our ISP's try to throttle bandwidth, never mind about them volunteering to spy on us and rat us out to the gov't.
I think that most web traffic could be considered "useless data" from the FBI's perspective. There's no reason to clog the pipes with random bits when you've got gigs worth of porn and mp3's zinging every which way all the time.
What the FBI would be interested in (presumably) is threats to national security, terrorists, virus writers, etc... (Yes, virus writers... the gov't doesn't take kindly to "malicious" code, be it for shutting down computer systems or decrypting DVD's...) For anything you personally consider sensitive and don't want the FBI peeking in on, you always have recourse to strong cryptography, though of course there are no perfect solutions.
Citizens are willing give up a certain right to privacy in order to be protected. However, things like Freenet are attempts to thwart Carnivore-like systems. It is unlikely that the Government will ever voluntarily give up what it considers to be its fundamental and unimpeachable right to conduct surveillance.
As far as Vinton Cerf goes: he worked for DARPA. He was a government employee. While I don't mean to imply that this somehow makes him untrustworthy, it does say something about his endorsement. I don't think it could be called an "independent endorsement" by any stretch.
I'd be interested to know what reasons he gives for not recommending open source. I suppose the only reasons that could really be justified are for "security" reasons. The government is all about secrecy -- why should they (or Cerf) say anything else now?
Because it allows the costs to be shared among the people who are interested in it. That's why lots of people can see a movie for under 10 bucks instead of having to individually pay the millions of dollars that it cost to create it.
Hmm. It isn't just the "costs" that are being shared. If it was just costs then movies wouldn't make any money, would they? And it's quite clear that movie studios are making lots of money.
However, once all of the costs have been paid back, why shouldn't the work enter the public domain? Well, the argument goes, because they deserve to earn a little money too. Okay. Hmm, so when DOES the work enter the public domain? Never, if they could possibly avoid it.
So essentially this is the point at which people feel they're being ripped off. They don't mind paying for the cost of a movie, and they don't mind giving the actors and director a fair share of profit, but when they have to keep paying and paying without any end in sight... your argument fails at that point.
So basically you're asking artists to live from charity.
You can call it charity or you can call it an alternative market structure. I don't suppose it matters what you call it.
...but if people end up not paying, well, that's just tough luck for the artist, I guess s/he wasn't good or sympathetic enough.
Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? Those products which are good prosper, those that aren't fail? (I'm no economist, but honestly...)
What you're conveniently overlooking is that obviously the music *is* good enough and appealing to a lot of people.... That does not automatically mean that people would pay for them if they didn't have to, i.e. if they could just get it for free.
And what you're conveniently overlooking is that people can get it for free online. And yet they pay.
I suppose it could be argued that some people just don't know about MP3's, or don't want to bother with them. But if Napster users are trading in the millions of songs per day, I imagine that Napster is quite widely known and used. Most people I know have downloaded MP3's, and most of them buy CD's anyway. As for myself, I buy CD's, and I believe that artists deserve reimbursement; I also believe I should be able to decide from whom I withhold reimbursement.
Do you think that a "pay only what you think it's worth" supermarket would work?
Information and physical goods are fundamentally dissimilar, so this analogy isn't that useful. I can go into more detail on this, but it's been said before by others.
People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
If people care so little about Brittany that they won't pay to support her, well, I guess that means she won't be able to pay her bills. I believe that's called capitalism. Whether or not they get to listen to her music is incidental to the matter. If the only way you can get people to pay you is to hold a figurative gun to their head, what a sad state of affairs it is for you.
The central problem here, which this article makes perfectly clear, is that someone who owns and creates something has every right to sell it under any terms they want. If those terms suck, no one will buy it.
Exactly. They will download it on MP3.
Just because people want something does not mean they deserve to have it- especially not on terms THEY choose.
Paying money doesn't mean I "deserve" to hear a song. I am entitled to use my ears whether the record execs want me to or not. If someone is playing a CD on their speakers and I walk by, I suppose you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it, but it seems rather silly. Similarly, if I download a song and play it on my computer, you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it. But it misses the point, really.
The point is that artists and record companies need to be reimbursed or else they won't be able to continue producing music. We shouldn't reimburse them simply because to do otherwise would be "wrong." We should reimburse them because we appreciate their efforts, we enjoy their songs, and we want them to produce more. If we do not enjoy the songs, if we wish they'd stop putting out such crap, then to reimburse them would be counter-productive. (Some might even say harmful.)
But you don't have the right to change the terms of their sale just because you don't like it, or because you think they're behind the times.
The way you're wording this is a bit odd. I suppose you could think of MP3 trading as "changing the terms of sale" but it only serves to obscure the issue. You could say "it is illegal to distribute copies of their copyrighted work" and I would say, "you know your Title XVII." When you say "you don't have the right" do you mean that we don't have the legal right, moral right, or what? Your own personal idea of what "rights" we have?
Speaking for myself, I believe we have the right (and sometimes obligation) to reimburse those who provide a valuable commodity, such as music or software; and we have the right to withhold reimbursement from those we choose. You may have your own idea, and the law certainly provides a different viewpoint.
Encourage the creator to produce other information like it.
Allow the creator to devote more time to producing information (maybe they can quit their day job?)
Bad reasons to pay for information:
A misplaced sense of moral obligation that leads you to believe that "enjoyment" is something you have to pay for.
Because Big Brother tells you to.
Enjoyment is not a privelege. We do not require permission to use our five senses. However, we must realize that if creators are not compensated in some way, they will not be able to create.
Piracy is a black-and-white issue: Using software without owning the license for it is theft.
Geez he gets it wrong from the first sentence. Infringement != theft. So much for expecting unbiased reporting... Of course, it's also telling that the only voice from the industry quoted was from Microsoft.
I suppose the industry doesn't really have a choice though; they clearly can't condone "piracy" of any kind. But aside from the PR involved, do companies really care whether their old junk is given away free? My guess is no. Until someone brings it up, no company can be bothered to care. IMHO the article adds nothing to the copyright debate. It says something about CNET that they would choose to run the story, though...
If you don't want or need USPS email, fine, don't sign up. I know I certainly wouldn't have any good use for it. But does that mean nobody could or would want to use it?
I think the interesting part of the proposal is having portals at post offices; people who don't have a computer could then communicate with all their friends using email. A lot of people buy a computer just so that they can use the internet and email. I think they might appreciate it if they didn't have to throw away money on something with such limited use to them.
My grandfather for instance got a computer a while back mainly because people told him the internet and email was great. He's not exactly enthralled by it but he does email people occasionally. I wouldn't say that the computer was a waste of money, but a free alternative would probably have been preferable.
Good point and your absolutely right. So as soon as no human being is in any way greedy or self-interested, we can abandon intellectual property.
Okay I understand your frustration with seeming "pie-in-the-sky" scenarios. But as the piece says, we can't simply throw out intellectual property, we should change attitudes first. It's just like any other idea that people have clung to for a long time: it works, why should we abandon it? Well, if we feel there is a better way, shouldn't we try to convince others?
Now I'm not saying that greedy people are evil or that people should be prevented from receiving compensation for their work. But I do think it's worth our while to try to convince as many people as possible that intellectual property is not the ONLY way, and that eliminating it will not INEVITABLY result in bad consequences.
Whoever goes first always loses, because they spend big bucks to get something that everybody else then gets for free.
The principle behind scientific progress, I should think, is that it doesn't matter who goes first, because the end result is that everybody wins. Doesn't it seem more logical to strengthen non-profit scientific research, rather than enforcing a monopoly for those who choose to do research solely for profit?
...pretty soon you would have a couple of very big pharmaceutical companies...
I don't follow the reasoning here. When a particular company no longer has a monopoly on a particular drug, that company no longer has an inherent advantage, that is, competition is enabled.
For instance, look at the cereal industry. Kellogg's was the first producer of flakes made from corn. However, they don't have exclusive rights to corn flakes, and so other smaller cereal manufacturers make equivalent products; competition thrives because Kellogg's does not have a monopoly advantage. And those smaller cereal manufacturers generally sell for less, the end result being that the consumer saves money.
Clearly, cereal is not medication. But I think the same principles apply.
Does ANYONE honestly believe that a pharmaceutical company, which spends millions or billions of dollars in research and development to produce drugs that YOU ALL USE AND NEED would continue to do this if they were not allowed to make a return on their investment, time, and effort?
I don't think anyone is suggesting we make pharmaceuticals companies give away drugs for free, merely that other companies be allowed to sell those drugs too. Then free market effects would (presumably) take over, and drug prices would (presumably) drop.
This ignores the initial R&D investment of course. Would pharm. companies continue to invest so much if they knew they would not have exclusive rights? Perhaps not; perhaps traditional academic scientific discovery would take the lead. Would this be a bad thing? I don't really know. But I don't think it's fair to assume that scientific progress would stop.
I would disagree with the writer on this point, this argument displays immense cluelessness, could you imagine going to an employee and saying, "yes we know you did 5 times as much work as Joe Bloggs over there, but you are ten times as smart, so we are going to have to pay him twice as much as you."
Actually I think the argument was that if your hypothetical employee does 5 times more work he should be paid proportionally more, also taking into account risk and "moral considerations" (whatever those are.) However, if he is 10 times more capable, he should produce work that is 10 times better; if the work he produces is only 5 times better, presumably he is only doing half as much work as Joe. Is he still entitled to more? The answer to this question will vary from person to person, but the article asserts that he is not.
cooldev wrote: Last but not least, the author is a total hypocrite: "Available for 7.95 pounds from Freedom Press"
From the last section of the chapter:
Freedom Press is not a typical publisher. (...) Remarkably, neither authors nor editors have ever been paid for their work. Freedom Press is concerned with social issues and social change, not with material returns to anyone involved in the enterprise. (...) In my opinion, using one chapter - especially this chapter! - for nonprofit purposes should normally be okay.
The essential differences between a library and Napster are:
When you take out a book from the library, no one else has access to that book for as long as you keep it out.
You can't keep a book out indefinitely.
However, if you're talking about an online "library": they need the permission of the copyright holder to put the book into digital form and to distribute digital copies of it.
This seems to me like a blatantly illegal attempt by the Republican party to punish the entertainment industry for financing Democratic campaigns.
You're kidding, right? I can't quite tell.
Anyway providing a vehicle for information exchange, like Napster or Hotmail or the US Postal Service, is not illegal. The improper use of that service may be illegal, but obviously we don't shut down Hotmail when some users are emailing each other kiddie porn.
The users of these services are breaking very clear copyright laws.I can't see any real defense for this...
IANAL, however: The defense most often cited is "fair use." Under US copyright law (Title 17, US Code, see http://uscode.house.gov/ ) anything that is deemed "fair use" of a copyrighted work is protected. It is up to the courts to decide what is fair use in any particular instance. Would the court rule that Napster users are protected by fair use considerations? My guess is no, but as the oft-cited Betamax case demonstrated, wherein the court found that taping copyrighted works was fair use, the courts can be at times forward-thinking.
And I can't see any reason that the news media would have cause to defend (yes, defend. what else would you call the NYT linking to 2600?) this ragtag bunch of pirates unless they've got a very good reason to.
Ragtag bunch of pirates? Gee, we're not biased at all, are we? First of all, the 2600/DeCSS issue is completely different, but that's not what we're discussing here. Anyway, I'm not sure which news media you're saying has defended Napster. I read a not-completely-damning Newsweek cover story a while back, but it was hardly a defense. However, I assume you realize that some people actually believe in the free exchange of information...? If not, I'm sure a lot of people here could tell you all about it.
Question: Was rummaging through everyone's email part of your job description? Had you been instructed to do it? Or did you simply take it upon yourself to be the company snitch?
As a network administrator, you have access to all sorts of sensitive personal information. And we're not just talking emails here, we're talking (potentially) salaries, SSN, etc. Just because you have access does that mean you are entitled to check it, just to satisfy your own curiosity?
I would hope the answer is "no." The janitor isn't allowed to go through your papers looking for incriminating evidence; similarly the sysadmin should not invade privacy without being told to do so.
The question of whether or not management has the right to go through your email is more complex. First of all, being spied on without your knowledge is offensive (if you find out, that is.) However, I feel that as long as a company makes CLEAR that they have the right to invade your privacy at their discretion, you are less likely to do something incriminating. For example, you wouldn't go to a BDSM or other potentially embarrassing site if you knew that you were being monitored; and the threat of monitoring can be more potent than the actual act (though threats must be backed up with action.)
But what gets people really mad is when they DON'T know they're being watched, and then their boss comes up to them demanding an explanation for all the porn they've been downloading. Not a situation I'd like to be faced with, how about you? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, true, but I think it is in everyone's best interests if people know beforehand they are being watched.
Final point. People have been goofing off ever since they invented work, and the internet is just the latest way, albeit a very efficient one. If someone listens to the radio or doodles on a sketchpad, goes to an internet site or writes an email, it's all the same thing. It's just that an email or choice of website (eg, porn) can reveal far more personal information about someone than their choice of radio station or what they draw, particularly if they think no one will know what they've written or what sites they've visited.
What will this do to the evolution of the human species?
Only a very select few care enough or are adventurous to venture from well-trodden paths -- this is certainly true of OS's and probably would be no less so of genetics. And generally people only change when there is a good reason too; people aren't very apt to "experiment" with their own bodies unless they expect a good return on investment.
And since evolution is on a large scale, there's no reason to think that small aberrations will affect the course of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a witch hunt by the government to ban violent games
You can get the FTC report on violence in media from ftc.gov.
First off, the report is not about banning violent games. The report is about corporate responsibility. Specifically it says that the industry markets violent content to children, and that they haven't done enough to give parents information about the violent/sexual/etc content of movies, music and video games. (Some politicians have said that if the industry doesn't clean up its act, they will enact legislation mandating better labeling or something like that.)
I've been watching parts of the hearing on the report on C-SPAN. Interestingly, none of the movie executives invited to attend the hearing managed to show up. They were all overseas or unavailable. Anyway I saw the examination of 2 video game executives and 2 music executives. They made plain in their statements that they believed that they were not intentionally marketing to children, and that the ultimate responsibility for regulating what children see and hear rests with parents. The response to this was that the industry should do a better job of informing the public, through ratings systems and the like. There was no suggestion that censorship or bans be applied, and in any case any attempt to do so would likely be ruled unconstitutional.
In short, the report and the hearing were about corporate accountability for content. Whether or not you think violent content encourages violent behavior, (I don't,) it is important to many parents that they have reliable ratings systems so that they can make informed decisions about what their kids should and should not be exposed to. Additionally, it is hypocritical to rate certain content as inappropriate for children and then market that content to those self-same children. While I don't think that legislation is the means by which these things should be controlled, the industry should and must be responsible for their marketing practices and for producing a reliable and meaningful ratings system.
The Government wanted a loophole so it could start censoring the web, and now they have it
Like any other conspiracy theory, I think we should take this statement with a grain of salt. The law under consideration is the DMCA; it was Judge Kaplan who provided the interpretation of the First Amendment. While the DMCA may indeed violate the First Amendment as applied in this case, I don't think it's fair to say that the DMCA was intended to provide a legal loophole for all forms of censorship.
From now on all anyone needs is a "Compelling Reason" to have a specific piece of information censored
Actually I don't think that's quite accurate. The ruling says that suppressing the source code does not violate the First Amendment because it is the function of the information, rather than its content or message, that provides the "compelling reason." So for instance, one could not ban porn simply because we disagreed with nudity, but rather we would have to show that porn has a specific function that provides a compelling reason to suppress it. (If we take this argument to the logical extreme, porn's function is sexual arousal, and sexual arousal can lead to teen pregnancy, so that could provide the compelling reason. But that seems like a long shot.)
IANAL
You "believe that's called capitalism? For people to decide after they have taken or copied something whether, and how much, they are going to pay for it?
Perhaps "free market" is more what I mean. You are free to choose what supermarket to buy your eggs from. If one supermarket is giving eggs away free, why wouldn't you go there?
Similarly, when there are multiple sources from which to get your music -- regardless of who created the music first -- why would you buy a CD? For very good reasons: to support the artist, or to encourage him to produce more good music.
If Stephen King didn't think that people cared enough about his work to pay for it, would he offer it online, potentially for free?
There is no clause about "If you don't feel like paying for it, or think it's too expensive (even though you agreed to the price up front) then you don't have to pay".
If you call the plumber to do work for you, you are making an agreement with him -- you agree to pay him if he does the work. If you did not agree to that, he would not come.
I never asked Brittany Spears to record any music. Now that she has, I feel no particular obligation to reimburse her for her time -- not unless I find some value in what she has done. If a plumber comes into your house while you're at work, fixes your sink, then leaves a bill -- do you pay him? You never agreed to the work, you are not obligated to pay him. However, you may choose to do so, if he has done a good job. (Of course on the other hand you may choose to throw him in jail for breaking and entering -- the analogy is imperfect.)
Similarly, when an employer hires a worker, there is an agreement, a contract -- the worker agrees to do whatever work the the employer asks of him in return for monetary compensation. If the worker does not do a good job -- he gets fired. If the employer does not pay -- he gets sued.
The spirit of carnivore is good, the idea that they can target one potential criminal, and read all email pertaining to him in an attempt to arrest him is great. The FBI needs somthing like that.
The FBI has always relied on covert surveillance. Carnivore is not exactly new or ground-breaking. But one has to wonder at how effective ANY system of this sort would be against technically-adept individuals. How many people who want to evade surveillance would email in plain text? Strong cryptography is frightening to the government precisely because they don't (yet) have a way to stop it. It seems to me that anyone who wished to evade detection could do so -- but I'm no expert in these matters.
The Freenet mailing lists have interesting discussions on these topics, mainly because Freenet's design goals include anonymity and untraceability.
The letter though, says only the FBI gets a good look at the code, and they can impliment it anywhere, anytime, on anybody, without any notice.
I don't think that's strictly speaking true. Mostly, police surveillance in this country requires some strong indication of wrong-doing. The Fourth Amendment provides for protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." I don't have any specifics regarding Carnivore but I would assume (hope) that monitoring everyone all the time would constitute an unreasonable search or seizure.
It is not in the government's best interest to open source it -- even though it may be in ours.
That was a mistake from the start, their PR department is getting spanked by the public...
Yes, a PR nightmare, assuming anyone is listening. I haven't seen it on network television lately.
I'm sure ISP's wouldn't mind adapting the software as a government-provided-spam-blocker, we spend enough money as it is trying spam email cases as it is.
I don't know about spam-blocker, but as for voluntary ISP participation... It seems unlikely to me that ISP's would volunteer to be the bad guy unless it was in their best interest, ie, to avoid lawsuits or prosecution. Customers certainly wouldn't appreciate it. We get annoyed when our ISP's try to throttle bandwidth, never mind about them volunteering to spy on us and rat us out to the gov't.
What the FBI would be interested in (presumably) is threats to national security, terrorists, virus writers, etc... (Yes, virus writers... the gov't doesn't take kindly to "malicious" code, be it for shutting down computer systems or decrypting DVD's...) For anything you personally consider sensitive and don't want the FBI peeking in on, you always have recourse to strong cryptography, though of course there are no perfect solutions.
Citizens are willing give up a certain right to privacy in order to be protected. However, things like Freenet are attempts to thwart Carnivore-like systems. It is unlikely that the Government will ever voluntarily give up what it considers to be its fundamental and unimpeachable right to conduct surveillance.
As far as Vinton Cerf goes: he worked for DARPA. He was a government employee. While I don't mean to imply that this somehow makes him untrustworthy, it does say something about his endorsement. I don't think it could be called an "independent endorsement" by any stretch.
I'd be interested to know what reasons he gives for not recommending open source. I suppose the only reasons that could really be justified are for "security" reasons. The government is all about secrecy -- why should they (or Cerf) say anything else now?
Because it allows the costs to be shared among the people who are interested in it. That's why lots of people can see a movie for under 10 bucks instead of having to individually pay the millions of dollars that it cost to create it.
Hmm. It isn't just the "costs" that are being shared. If it was just costs then movies wouldn't make any money, would they? And it's quite clear that movie studios are making lots of money.
However, once all of the costs have been paid back, why shouldn't the work enter the public domain? Well, the argument goes, because they deserve to earn a little money too. Okay. Hmm, so when DOES the work enter the public domain? Never, if they could possibly avoid it.
So essentially this is the point at which people feel they're being ripped off. They don't mind paying for the cost of a movie, and they don't mind giving the actors and director a fair share of profit, but when they have to keep paying and paying without any end in sight... your argument fails at that point.
So basically you're asking artists to live from charity.
You can call it charity or you can call it an alternative market structure. I don't suppose it matters what you call it.
Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? Those products which are good prosper, those that aren't fail? (I'm no economist, but honestly...)
What you're conveniently overlooking is that obviously the music *is* good enough and appealing to a lot of people. ... That does not automatically mean that people would pay for them if they didn't have to, i.e. if they could just get it for free.
And what you're conveniently overlooking is that people can get it for free online. And yet they pay.
I suppose it could be argued that some people just don't know about MP3's, or don't want to bother with them. But if Napster users are trading in the millions of songs per day, I imagine that Napster is quite widely known and used. Most people I know have downloaded MP3's, and most of them buy CD's anyway. As for myself, I buy CD's, and I believe that artists deserve reimbursement; I also believe I should be able to decide from whom I withhold reimbursement.
Do you think that a "pay only what you think it's worth" supermarket would work?
Information and physical goods are fundamentally dissimilar, so this analogy isn't that useful. I can go into more detail on this, but it's been said before by others.
People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
If people care so little about Brittany that they won't pay to support her, well, I guess that means she won't be able to pay her bills. I believe that's called capitalism. Whether or not they get to listen to her music is incidental to the matter. If the only way you can get people to pay you is to hold a figurative gun to their head, what a sad state of affairs it is for you.
The central problem here, which this article makes perfectly clear, is that someone who owns and creates something has every right to sell it under any terms they want. If those terms suck, no one will buy it.
Exactly. They will download it on MP3.
Just because people want something does not mean they deserve to have it- especially not on terms THEY choose.
Paying money doesn't mean I "deserve" to hear a song. I am entitled to use my ears whether the record execs want me to or not. If someone is playing a CD on their speakers and I walk by, I suppose you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it, but it seems rather silly. Similarly, if I download a song and play it on my computer, you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it. But it misses the point, really.
The point is that artists and record companies need to be reimbursed or else they won't be able to continue producing music. We shouldn't reimburse them simply because to do otherwise would be "wrong." We should reimburse them because we appreciate their efforts, we enjoy their songs, and we want them to produce more. If we do not enjoy the songs, if we wish they'd stop putting out such crap, then to reimburse them would be counter-productive. (Some might even say harmful.)
But you don't have the right to change the terms of their sale just because you don't like it, or because you think they're behind the times.
The way you're wording this is a bit odd. I suppose you could think of MP3 trading as "changing the terms of sale" but it only serves to obscure the issue. You could say "it is illegal to distribute copies of their copyrighted work" and I would say, "you know your Title XVII." When you say "you don't have the right" do you mean that we don't have the legal right, moral right, or what? Your own personal idea of what "rights" we have?
Speaking for myself, I believe we have the right (and sometimes obligation) to reimburse those who provide a valuable commodity, such as music or software; and we have the right to withhold reimbursement from those we choose. You may have your own idea, and the law certainly provides a different viewpoint.
Good reasons to pay for information:
Bad reasons to pay for information:
Enjoyment is not a privelege. We do not require permission to use our five senses. However, we must realize that if creators are not compensated in some way, they will not be able to create.
Just my $0.02.
Piracy is a black-and-white issue: Using software without owning the license for it is theft.
Geez he gets it wrong from the first sentence. Infringement != theft. So much for expecting unbiased reporting... Of course, it's also telling that the only voice from the industry quoted was from Microsoft.
I suppose the industry doesn't really have a choice though; they clearly can't condone "piracy" of any kind. But aside from the PR involved, do companies really care whether their old junk is given away free? My guess is no. Until someone brings it up, no company can be bothered to care. IMHO the article adds nothing to the copyright debate. It says something about CNET that they would choose to run the story, though...
If you don't want or need USPS email, fine, don't sign up. I know I certainly wouldn't have any good use for it. But does that mean nobody could or would want to use it?
I think the interesting part of the proposal is having portals at post offices; people who don't have a computer could then communicate with all their friends using email. A lot of people buy a computer just so that they can use the internet and email. I think they might appreciate it if they didn't have to throw away money on something with such limited use to them.
My grandfather for instance got a computer a while back mainly because people told him the internet and email was great. He's not exactly enthralled by it but he does email people occasionally. I wouldn't say that the computer was a waste of money, but a free alternative would probably have been preferable.
Good point and your absolutely right. So as soon as no human being is in any way greedy or self-interested, we can abandon intellectual property.
Okay I understand your frustration with seeming "pie-in-the-sky" scenarios. But as the piece says, we can't simply throw out intellectual property, we should change attitudes first. It's just like any other idea that people have clung to for a long time: it works, why should we abandon it? Well, if we feel there is a better way, shouldn't we try to convince others?
Now I'm not saying that greedy people are evil or that people should be prevented from receiving compensation for their work. But I do think it's worth our while to try to convince as many people as possible that intellectual property is not the ONLY way, and that eliminating it will not INEVITABLY result in bad consequences.
Whoever goes first always loses, because they spend big bucks to get something that everybody else then gets for free.
The principle behind scientific progress, I should think, is that it doesn't matter who goes first, because the end result is that everybody wins. Doesn't it seem more logical to strengthen non-profit scientific research, rather than enforcing a monopoly for those who choose to do research solely for profit?
I don't follow the reasoning here. When a particular company no longer has a monopoly on a particular drug, that company no longer has an inherent advantage, that is, competition is enabled.
For instance, look at the cereal industry. Kellogg's was the first producer of flakes made from corn. However, they don't have exclusive rights to corn flakes, and so other smaller cereal manufacturers make equivalent products; competition thrives because Kellogg's does not have a monopoly advantage. And those smaller cereal manufacturers generally sell for less, the end result being that the consumer saves money.
Clearly, cereal is not medication. But I think the same principles apply.
Does ANYONE honestly believe that a pharmaceutical company, which spends millions or billions of dollars in research and development to produce drugs that YOU ALL USE AND NEED would continue to do this if they were not allowed to make a return on their investment, time, and effort?
I don't think anyone is suggesting we make pharmaceuticals companies give away drugs for free, merely that other companies be allowed to sell those drugs too. Then free market effects would (presumably) take over, and drug prices would (presumably) drop.
This ignores the initial R&D investment of course. Would pharm. companies continue to invest so much if they knew they would not have exclusive rights? Perhaps not; perhaps traditional academic scientific discovery would take the lead. Would this be a bad thing? I don't really know. But I don't think it's fair to assume that scientific progress would stop.
I would disagree with the writer on this point, this argument displays immense cluelessness, could you imagine going to an employee and saying, "yes we know you did 5 times as much work as Joe Bloggs over there, but you are ten times as smart, so we are going to have to pay him twice as much as you."
Actually I think the argument was that if your hypothetical employee does 5 times more work he should be paid proportionally more, also taking into account risk and "moral considerations" (whatever those are.) However, if he is 10 times more capable, he should produce work that is 10 times better; if the work he produces is only 5 times better, presumably he is only doing half as much work as Joe. Is he still entitled to more? The answer to this question will vary from person to person, but the article asserts that he is not.
cooldev wrote: Last but not least, the author is a total hypocrite: "Available for 7.95 pounds from Freedom Press"
From the last section of the chapter:
Freedom Press is not a typical publisher. (...) Remarkably, neither authors nor editors have ever been paid for their work. Freedom Press is concerned with social issues and social change, not with material returns to anyone involved in the enterprise. (...) In my opinion, using one chapter - especially this chapter! - for nonprofit purposes should normally be okay.
The essential differences between a library and Napster are:
However, if you're talking about an online "library": they need the permission of the copyright holder to put the book into digital form and to distribute digital copies of it.
This seems to me like a blatantly illegal attempt by the Republican party to punish the entertainment industry for financing Democratic campaigns.
You're kidding, right? I can't quite tell.
Anyway providing a vehicle for information exchange, like Napster or Hotmail or the US Postal Service, is not illegal. The improper use of that service may be illegal, but obviously we don't shut down Hotmail when some users are emailing each other kiddie porn.
The users of these services are breaking very clear copyright laws.I can't see any real defense for this...
IANAL, however: The defense most often cited is "fair use." Under US copyright law (Title 17, US Code, see http://uscode.house.gov/ ) anything that is deemed "fair use" of a copyrighted work is protected. It is up to the courts to decide what is fair use in any particular instance. Would the court rule that Napster users are protected by fair use considerations? My guess is no, but as the oft-cited Betamax case demonstrated, wherein the court found that taping copyrighted works was fair use, the courts can be at times forward-thinking.
And I can't see any reason that the news media would have cause to defend (yes, defend. what else would you call the NYT linking to 2600?) this ragtag bunch of pirates unless they've got a very good reason to.
Ragtag bunch of pirates? Gee, we're not biased at all, are we? First of all, the 2600/DeCSS issue is completely different, but that's not what we're discussing here. Anyway, I'm not sure which news media you're saying has defended Napster. I read a not-completely-damning Newsweek cover story a while back, but it was hardly a defense. However, I assume you realize that some people actually believe in the free exchange of information...? If not, I'm sure a lot of people here could tell you all about it.
Question: Was rummaging through everyone's email part of your job description? Had you been instructed to do it? Or did you simply take it upon yourself to be the company snitch?
As a network administrator, you have access to all sorts of sensitive personal information. And we're not just talking emails here, we're talking (potentially) salaries, SSN, etc. Just because you have access does that mean you are entitled to check it, just to satisfy your own curiosity?
I would hope the answer is "no." The janitor isn't allowed to go through your papers looking for incriminating evidence; similarly the sysadmin should not invade privacy without being told to do so.
The question of whether or not management has the right to go through your email is more complex. First of all, being spied on without your knowledge is offensive (if you find out, that is.) However, I feel that as long as a company makes CLEAR that they have the right to invade your privacy at their discretion, you are less likely to do something incriminating. For example, you wouldn't go to a BDSM or other potentially embarrassing site if you knew that you were being monitored; and the threat of monitoring can be more potent than the actual act (though threats must be backed up with action.)
But what gets people really mad is when they DON'T know they're being watched, and then their boss comes up to them demanding an explanation for all the porn they've been downloading. Not a situation I'd like to be faced with, how about you? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, true, but I think it is in everyone's best interests if people know beforehand they are being watched.
Final point. People have been goofing off ever since they invented work, and the internet is just the latest way, albeit a very efficient one. If someone listens to the radio or doodles on a sketchpad, goes to an internet site or writes an email, it's all the same thing. It's just that an email or choice of website (eg, porn) can reveal far more personal information about someone than their choice of radio station or what they draw, particularly if they think no one will know what they've written or what sites they've visited.
Only a very select few care enough or are adventurous to venture from well-trodden paths -- this is certainly true of OS's and probably would be no less so of genetics. And generally people only change when there is a good reason too; people aren't very apt to "experiment" with their own bodies unless they expect a good return on investment.
And since evolution is on a large scale, there's no reason to think that small aberrations will affect the course of evolution.