are we at the point yet where blogs are considered "news sources"
They're sources. And, just like any source, should be accorded the amount of trust they have earned with you. A well-written and researched blog can be just as worthwhile of a read as a column in any newspaper. And plenty of "traditional media" types have been caught stealing or lying.
Imagine that a computer program is eventually written that can simulate the human brain with sufficient accuracy that its behavior is indistinguishable from the behavior of a human brain. By hypothesis, this computer program will have the same amount of "free will" that a human brain has.
Hmmm... I think this computer program will simply be imitating a human brain, which may or may not have free will. The fact that you can imitate something does not mean you share any of its other qualities.
If I practice mimicking the work of Rembrandt, for example, to the point where you can not distinguish my imitation from his original work, by your hypothesis, that would make me equivalent to a Dutch master. That's great, until someone asks me to produce an original work, which I likely will not be able to do to the same standard. Another example: certain orchids attract insects by imitating them in order to spread their pollen. To the insect, the orchid is indistinguishable from another insect. That does not mean the orchid resembles an insect in any other regard.
if US citizens are involved, then they are liable, perhaps, but the russian entity is not.
You apparently haven't been paying very close attention to the U.S. government's actions lately. Marc Emery is currently facing extradition to the U.S. because marijuana seeds he sells over the Internet were purchased by U.S. citizens. The government of the United States has little respect for international borders. Small wonder its corporations follow suit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your Patriot Act give your government the authority to demand any information a company has on you, as well as make it a crime for the company to notify you that they have done so?
It's only outright theft when it doesn't expire in an average human lifetime.
Oh, for sure. I think copyright is an excellent bargain for everyone if done correctly. Give the creator (or their 'sponsor') a temporary monopoly as an incentive to continue creating work, and in exchange it becomes public (blech, I hate to use this word) "property" at the end of the term. Much like patents, the idea is to ultimately fully disclose (or make freely available) the work once the creator has been given a chance to make a buck. The alternative would be to try to protect a secret (in the case of patents) or create work only for a small, exclusive group of people who would pay the artist and share the work only with those they chose to (which, come to think of it, is not that far from the current situation).
BTW, I like your sig. Is that where the line "it's a fine line between clever and stupid" from This Is Spinal Tap came from?
One of the other arbitration cases MGM's attorney was involved in was Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions over the domain name dellcomputersucks.com. From the National Arbitration Forum's finding:
9. Respondents domain name, dellcomputerssuck.com is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, DELL.
yeah, that one got me too. I was sure Dell had registered a domain to inform me of the suckiness of their products.
10. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name dellcomputerssuck.com.
... because criticizing the quality of Dell computers is the exclusive prerogative of Dell Inc.
11. Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
This may have some merit. According to the Decision, the domain originally pointed to the respondent's site, on which he sold computers. After receiving the C&D, he pointed it to a site featuring commentary critical of Dell.
It really shouldn't matter though, as there is no way a reasonable person could confuse a site called dellcomputersucks.com with Dell's own website, thus violating their trademark. Unfortunately, Carolyn M. Johnson, Peter L. Michaelson, and Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. didn't see it that way:
12. The dellcomputerssuck.com domain name should be transferred to Complainant.
This doesn't strike me as being all that different from suing to get an injunction to prevent a site from linking to a piece of software the "IP" cartels don't like.
If Roblimo is a good journalist, then his personal opinions shouldn't enter into his review of the tourIf Roblimo is a good journalist, then his personal opinions shouldn't enter into his review of the tour
What, exactly, should he base a 'review' on other than his personal opinion?
Gee, Roger Ebert said he hated that movie. I wish he'd keep his personal opinions to himself and give us an unbiased review.
So basically, I think all Digg readers should fuck off.
As you seem to be a fairly regular Digg reader yourself, I think that's excellent advise.
The original poster notes that a sight whose masthead reads "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" didn't cover the disappearance and death of a high-profile geek, and you puke up this vitriol?
I have something, which you want, and I am morally obligated to give it to you, by virtue of the fact that I have it. Where is it in my interest to do so, if I do not accept your premise that I am somehow inherently obligated to?
Do you only do things that directly benefit your own interests? How about benefiting from living in a more altruistic society, one which you would contribute to as well as benefit from? Particularily if the thing you "have," which I "want," is digital in nature and therefore technically trivial to share with others.
If I hear a song _anywhere_, because of this levy, I can go on the internet, download it, and listen to it without fear of being strongarmed by a recording industry association into paying a $750 per song fine.
You could also, you know, buy a CD, or download it off iTunes so the artist gets paid.
I know, record companies are only interested in selling the flavour-of-the-month so it can be hard to find those rare albums. That was the beauty of Napster. When lot's of people were sharing their collections, I was finally able to get rare songs and albums that I had been hunting for in used record stores without success for years. Music lovers were able to take steps to keep old music alive, something that doesn't fit the business model of the recording industry.
Listen, if you are in to downloading music and feel paying 21 cents per CD-R is a fair trade, good for you. But there are many other uses for CD-Rs and those of us who don't use them for that purpose resent like hell having to pay it.
You don't say whether that "under twenty bucks" includes the levy, but lets play with the numbers. If it does include the levy, then more than half the price you paid for your cylinder of 50 CD-Rs ($10.50) went in to the pocket of The Canadian Private Copying Collective. If the levy is being tacked on as a separate line item on your bill, as London Drugs does, then you are actually paying $30.50 for your $20.00 cylinder of CD-Rs. But you're ok with that.
How much does a CD at a concert cost? If they're being produced by the band on their home computers (the only reason they'd need to purchase blank media), how much are they saving over having the CDs professionally pressed?
You've apparently never driven across Canada in a van with no heat in the middle of winter playing gigs in small clubs and trying to make enough off t-shirt and CD sales to buy gas to make it to the next town. And yes, many independent artist, who want nothing to do with the CPCC and the companies they represent, produce their own CDs.
Alternatively, they are free to go to a country that does not have the levy, purchase the CDs there, bring them in, and record their songs on them. As they are then not selling blank media, the CDs are not subject to the levy.
I'm not sure if you are right or wrong about that. Why don't you drive across the border, buy a cylinder of blank CD-Rs, declare them when you go through Canadian Customs, and report back to us on whether or not they made you pay the levy. If you're using the blanks to steal Canadian artists' intellectual property, I can't see why you wouldn't pay the levy, not to mention the GST, provincial sales tax and any other levies that may be applicable.
Oh, and let us know how much this little exercise cost you in gas.
The Canadian government has given taxation authority to a collection of private businesses with no accountability to the public as to how and to whom these funds are allocated, and no recourse to members of the public who put blank media to uses that have nothing to do with their shitty music.
I've ranted on this before on slashdot, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record:
Imagine you are an independent band struggling to sell a few cds you produced yourself at gigs, and having to pay this "pirate penalty" on every one of your cds you produce to the big-money record cartels you're trying not to have anything to do with. Suppose you are an indy film-maker or anyone who produces a lot of media content that you store in digital format. You have no recourse, you pay this tax regardless of what you will use the media for. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) distributes the money collected (supposedly; I'd like to see figures for what is collected, how and to whom it is allocated) based on sales and airplay. So struggling artists who get minimal airplay will not benefit, just the fat cats getting fatter.
Do you really think the MPAA will let some activist judge declare the DMCA invalid because you paid a levy on the blank DVD you copied their intellectual property to?
Ok, so the original article had a better headline. I still don't see what is inaccurate or misleading about the/. headline.
MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist...
That's straight out of the headline you said got it right;
Named as MA Tech Advisor
The MA Govenor-Elect named him to a technology advisory group. Would that not make him a "tech advisor?"
Seriously, am I missing something?
Are you two objecting to the fact that it doesn't say he was named as "a" tech advisor? The post I replied to complained that there were other people in the group. My point was, that's the way headlines are written. I've written them. They're big and bold and fill half the page of a tabloid, so you leave out words like "an." Think "Man Bites Dog!" You wouldn't use "Man Bites A Dog" because "A" is redundant and it's less punchy. The shorter version gives just enough information to get the reader to read the first paragraph. And that's the purpose of a headline.
it's tempting to thing that the Democrats are going to side with the little guy
I'm not sure why you would think that. The DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) were both signed in to law by president Clinton. Not exactly "little guy"-friendly legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
They're sources. And, just like any source, should be accorded the amount of trust they have earned with you. A well-written and researched blog can be just as worthwhile of a read as a column in any newspaper. And plenty of "traditional media" types have been caught stealing or lying.
I can't wait for Amazon to patent the "one-click book shelf"
And people say lawyers talk in circles.
You've got that right. The summary also says the case is "over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix."
Matthew Szulik, wearing a red hat. The parent seems 'topical' enough to me.
Yes.
Hmmm
If I practice mimicking the work of Rembrandt, for example, to the point where you can not distinguish my imitation from his original work, by your hypothesis, that would make me equivalent to a Dutch master. That's great, until someone asks me to produce an original work, which I likely will not be able to do to the same standard. Another example: certain orchids attract insects by imitating them in order to spread their pollen. To the insect, the orchid is indistinguishable from another insect. That does not mean the orchid resembles an insect in any other regard.
You apparently haven't been paying very close attention to the U.S. government's actions lately. Marc Emery is currently facing extradition to the U.S. because marijuana seeds he sells over the Internet were purchased by U.S. citizens. The government of the United States has little respect for international borders. Small wonder its corporations follow suit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your Patriot Act give your government the authority to demand any information a company has on you, as well as make it a crime for the company to notify you that they have done so?
Oh, for sure. I think copyright is an excellent bargain for everyone if done correctly. Give the creator (or their 'sponsor') a temporary monopoly as an incentive to continue creating work, and in exchange it becomes public (blech, I hate to use this word) "property" at the end of the term. Much like patents, the idea is to ultimately fully disclose (or make freely available) the work once the creator has been given a chance to make a buck. The alternative would be to try to protect a secret (in the case of patents) or create work only for a small, exclusive group of people who would pay the artist and share the work only with those they chose to (which, come to think of it, is not that far from the current situation).
BTW, I like your sig. Is that where the line "it's a fine line between clever and stupid" from This Is Spinal Tap came from?
Copyright that never expires is theft from the Public Domain. So copyright is theft, at least. (Or is that 'at best'?)
yeah, that one got me too. I was sure Dell had registered a domain to inform me of the suckiness of their products.
This may have some merit. According to the Decision, the domain originally pointed to the respondent's site, on which he sold computers. After receiving the C&D, he pointed it to a site featuring commentary critical of Dell.
It really shouldn't matter though, as there is no way a reasonable person could confuse a site called dellcomputersucks.com with Dell's own website, thus violating their trademark. Unfortunately, Carolyn M. Johnson, Peter L. Michaelson, and Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. didn't see it that way:
This doesn't strike me as being all that different from suing to get an injunction to prevent a site from linking to a piece of software the "IP" cartels don't like.
So yes, he has both.
What, exactly, should he base a 'review' on other than his personal opinion?
Gee, Roger Ebert said he hated that movie. I wish he'd keep his personal opinions to himself and give us an unbiased review.
As you seem to be a fairly regular Digg reader yourself, I think that's excellent advise.
The original poster notes that a sight whose masthead reads "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" didn't cover the disappearance and death of a high-profile geek, and you puke up this vitriol?
1. Take your Ritalin.
2. Go bitch about Digg on Digg.
Do you only do things that directly benefit your own interests? How about benefiting from living in a more altruistic society, one which you would contribute to as well as benefit from? Particularily if the thing you "have," which I "want," is digital in nature and therefore technically trivial to share with others.
You mean the pigs and the dogs
They may be at fault, but you are the one who is screwed.
You could also, you know, buy a CD, or download it off iTunes so the artist gets paid.
I know, record companies are only interested in selling the flavour-of-the-month so it can be hard to find those rare albums. That was the beauty of Napster. When lot's of people were sharing their collections, I was finally able to get rare songs and albums that I had been hunting for in used record stores without success for years. Music lovers were able to take steps to keep old music alive, something that doesn't fit the business model of the recording industry.
Listen, if you are in to downloading music and feel paying 21 cents per CD-R is a fair trade, good for you. But there are many other uses for CD-Rs and those of us who don't use them for that purpose resent like hell having to pay it.
You've apparently never driven across Canada in a van with no heat in the middle of winter playing gigs in small clubs and trying to make enough off t-shirt and CD sales to buy gas to make it to the next town. And yes, many independent artist, who want nothing to do with the CPCC and the companies they represent, produce their own CDs.
I'm not sure if you are right or wrong about that. Why don't you drive across the border, buy a cylinder of blank CD-Rs, declare them when you go through Canadian Customs, and report back to us on whether or not they made you pay the levy. If you're using the blanks to steal Canadian artists' intellectual property, I can't see why you wouldn't pay the levy, not to mention the GST, provincial sales tax and any other levies that may be applicable.
Oh, and let us know how much this little exercise cost you in gas.
The Canadian government has given taxation authority to a collection of private businesses with no accountability to the public as to how and to whom these funds are allocated, and no recourse to members of the public who put blank media to uses that have nothing to do with their shitty music.
Good for you if you're ok with that.
I've ranted on this before on slashdot, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record:
Imagine you are an independent band struggling to sell a few cds you produced yourself at gigs, and having to pay this "pirate penalty" on every one of your cds you produce to the big-money record cartels you're trying not to have anything to do with. Suppose you are an indy film-maker or anyone who produces a lot of media content that you store in digital format. You have no recourse, you pay this tax regardless of what you will use the media for. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) distributes the money collected (supposedly; I'd like to see figures for what is collected, how and to whom it is allocated) based on sales and airplay. So struggling artists who get minimal airplay will not benefit, just the fat cats getting fatter.
Do you really think the MPAA will let some activist judge declare the DMCA invalid because you paid a levy on the blank DVD you copied their intellectual property to?
That's straight out of the headline you said got it right;
The MA Govenor-Elect named him to a technology advisory group. Would that not make him a "tech advisor?"
Seriously, am I missing something?
Are you two objecting to the fact that it doesn't say he was named as "a" tech advisor? The post I replied to complained that there were other people in the group. My point was, that's the way headlines are written. I've written them. They're big and bold and fill half the page of a tabloid, so you leave out words like "an." Think "Man Bites Dog!" You wouldn't use "Man Bites A Dog" because "A" is redundant and it's less punchy. The shorter version gives just enough information to get the reader to read the first paragraph. And that's the purpose of a headline.
What's misleading? This is the way headlines are written.
Space is tight for headlines, so extraneous words are omitted. What do you expect?
"An Anti-ODF Lobbyist Was Named A Technical Adviser to the State of Massachusetts Today, Joining Seven Other People From Various Backgrounds?"
That would be the story lead. The purpose of a headline is to get you to read the story, not to give you every detail.
I'm not sure why you would think that. The DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) were both signed in to law by president Clinton. Not exactly "little guy"-friendly legislation.