No, the original question was: How To Inform a Non-Techie About Proposed Copyright Laws
For me the only way to make your point of view understood is to explain it. This is my point of view, and I've already converted quite a few hard core pro-copyrights enforcement people with this.
The point is not to show and describe the devious side effects, because you then have to weight the side effects vs the "bonus by reducing piracy". Which is moot. The point is to show that the goals of the laws will not be reached by the law. Therefore, the law if irrelevant because at best, it will do nothing.
Wrong. Whereas people talk to each other every day of every year since the invention of talk.
This wasn't as much of an issue back when we had crude weapons
It wasn't an issue because it is not true.
Weapons today make it trivial to kill people.
That one is not true either. Modern weapons make it easier, but certainly not trivial.
You can easily kill people remotely, making the murderer hard to notice by anyone.
But the murder is easy to notice. In copyright infringement, the "crime" is not even known by the offended party.
I guess there's no nee to explain why your conclusion is flawed since it is based on 4 facts that are wrong.
The point is that ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, are pointless. They can only harm people that do not engage on infringement and they'll do nothing against piracy. So really, there is no point.
You are just a moron. I pay for my music and my movies. What the fuck led you to believe the opposite?
As far as facts are concerned, I think we're in the case of you needing to find a counter argument. Or let's put is another way:
FACT: 1. Anyone can tell anything to his/her neighbor provided the neighbor is willing to listen. It can be anything: The latest news (which is copyrighted by Reuters BTW), the name of my newborn, the weather (copyrighted by many people btw), etc.
There. Does that make it more clear? And during my weather description, I could obfuscate a hidden message trivially. That's for encryption.
Now, public speech is not a right everywhere. That's one-to-many communication. I was talking peer to peer. Apologies about the confusion.
Exactly my point: Enforcing those copyright are going to hurt legal activities over the internet while the information flows freely underground.
That said, you make a point: You can still make money from "information" by selling it to public facing websites, that have to abide by the law. I mean, it's not like they can hide themselves, it would defy the point.
A) Useless because of steganography and other mechanisms encrypted content can be hidden, B) Even if it could be done, it would kill the internet as surely as if you pulled the plug.
You should have tried harder to read me then, before assuming my "stance" which really I take as an insult. But I'm used to people applying their point of view to anything they read and if someone doesn't agree with them 100%, (s)he must be of the exact opposite viewpoint as yours. Talk about narrow viewpoints.
Entertainment is not information. But some entertainment produces information that is transferable through the internet. That part is changing. For good, unless someone shuts the internet down. There is nothing to add to that. It's already happened.
Facts: 1. Information flows freely between people. There is no way around that. It's been like that since humans were first able to communicate. 2. This didn't mean much back in the days since information was tied to physical media (books, tapes...), so it was essentially not free except what you could say/listen to, which was naturally limited by our brains. 3. Information is now infinite and fast and without borders (for all intents and purposes pertaining to copyrights) 4. You can encrypt and obfuscate communications with the help of computers, beyond the reach of anyone, including the law enforcement. Hence, with little overhead, nobody can tell what you transmit over the internet, except the guy at the other end with the key/password.
Conclusion: 0. Anyone can communicate freely with everyone else, MEANS: 1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet. 2. Any law trying to prevent this will just harm lawful activities on the web by making it more and more cumbersome and risky to operate a legitimate website. 3. Piracy will not be reduced or stopped by anything else that global extinction of the internet. It is detectable for some part right now because people don't bother hiding themselves. This will change quickly and without pain from the pirates.
Ah... One last thing: It doesn't mean the end of music/films/books artists, but it surely means the end of movie/films/books distributors.
You mean to say that "my iPad crashes constantly" doesn't mean that the iPad crashes? Really?
Furthermore, I can find craploads of badly written apps for every OS in existence, that crash constantly. This is so unrelated to the quality of the underlying OS that the entire sentence made no sense anyways.
I pretty much agree. Plus, upping their capacity will make them reduce power emissions from their antennas which will calm down the GSM-is-microwave freaks.
In my view, the real question should not be "should we boycott iPhones" but "which smartphone do we boycott". There is no reason Apple should be the only smarphone manufacturer under inspection, and I haven't read anywhere a comparison.
And in case they're all bad, you will never get enough people to boycott all Smartphones. But compare the manufacturers: RIM, HTC, Apple, Samsung, SONY, Nokia and you can find the worst offender. Then, you can put pressure on the worst offender.
That way, you can raise the manufacturing conditions by the bottom, which makes sense. But I somehow doubt Apple is one of the worst offender. I may be wrong.
There is however a catch, since a lots of libraries will allow you do do cross-domain "AJAX-like" request by adding a "SCRIPT" object to the page dynamically. You can't POST but you can GET fine with this method since the SCRIPT tag is cross domain.
You only "send your traffic" to facebook, if you choose to click on the link to Facebook.
Aaaaand, congratulations! You don't know how the Web works.
Whenever you see the "Like" facebook button, you browser has made several HTTP request to facebook and run facebook hosted scripts on your page. And if you're logged in to facebook on that computer, facebook has recorded the fact that YOU went to that page.
All of that without clicking on the button, courtesy of the website owner.
Well, we have a KICK ASS healthcare system in France. We heal a sizable portion of northern Africa with it, for free. The thing is in deficit of several billions euros every year.
Sure, we get great coverage. The the price/value ratio is very very high. Higher than in most country. Hence, I judge it poor as a whole.
As far as government is concerned, we have no federal government (point goes to the US) and the various states governments are on average completely irresponsible and utterly demagogic. Look at where we are now. We printed money for about 4k billion euros in December to be able to repay the interests of our debt.
Google? Software Apple? Software (They use the hardware to leverage their software, but their core value is software) Amazon? Software Microsoft? Software Yahoo, Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Software
The way to get money from software has shifted, but believe me, you've spent more than you think. Never bought a PC or a phone or a tablet? Dude, it's more than $0.
Never forget that without roads, you'll have no cars. Yet, cars are sold by the million every month, and it generates more revenue than maintaining the current infrastructure costs.
In all fairness, there is a heck of a lot more value in software than in hardware. Hardware is now a commodity, nothing more.
And in other news, this is one of the very very rare piece of wisdom to make it up the front page of slashdot in a long time. It's like there was a disturbance in the force... Did you feel it too?
If the thing is based on JS, CSS and HTML, I think the answer is pretty obvious: BB browser sucks ass so terribly they'd have to write one from scratch (or to port Webkit)
Modded Troll? What the hell is wrong with these people? Surely there must be a way to mod a Troll-modder?! Take away all their mod points and cookies too, damnit!
And as I learned in Sesame Street, without cookies, there is no joy !
Slashdot Mirror
No, the original question was: How To Inform a Non-Techie About Proposed Copyright Laws
For me the only way to make your point of view understood is to explain it. This is my point of view, and I've already converted quite a few hard core pro-copyrights enforcement people with this.
The point is not to show and describe the devious side effects, because you then have to weight the side effects vs the "bonus by reducing piracy". Which is moot.
The point is to show that the goals of the laws will not be reached by the law. Therefore, the law if irrelevant because at best, it will do nothing.
And sorry about the confusion.
ASCII is just 128 characters.
You need to check up your facts.
People have a tendency to kill other people.
Wrong. Whereas people talk to each other every day of every year since the invention of talk.
This wasn't as much of an issue back when we had crude weapons
It wasn't an issue because it is not true.
Weapons today make it trivial to kill people.
That one is not true either. Modern weapons make it easier, but certainly not trivial.
You can easily kill people remotely, making the murderer hard to notice by anyone.
But the murder is easy to notice. In copyright infringement, the "crime" is not even known by the offended party.
I guess there's no nee to explain why your conclusion is flawed since it is based on 4 facts that are wrong.
The point is that ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, are pointless. They can only harm people that do not engage on infringement and they'll do nothing against piracy. So really, there is no point.
You are just a moron. I pay for my music and my movies. What the fuck led you to believe the opposite?
As far as facts are concerned, I think we're in the case of you needing to find a counter argument. Or let's put is another way:
FACT:
1. Anyone can tell anything to his/her neighbor provided the neighbor is willing to listen. It can be anything: The latest news (which is copyrighted by Reuters BTW), the name of my newborn, the weather (copyrighted by many people btw), etc.
There. Does that make it more clear? And during my weather description, I could obfuscate a hidden message trivially. That's for encryption.
Now, public speech is not a right everywhere. That's one-to-many communication. I was talking peer to peer. Apologies about the confusion.
Exactly my point: Enforcing those copyright are going to hurt legal activities over the internet while the information flows freely underground.
That said, you make a point: You can still make money from "information" by selling it to public facing websites, that have to abide by the law. I mean, it's not like they can hide themselves, it would defy the point.
Banning encryption is :
A) Useless because of steganography and other mechanisms encrypted content can be hidden,
B) Even if it could be done, it would kill the internet as surely as if you pulled the plug.
You should have tried harder to read me then, before assuming my "stance" which really I take as an insult. But I'm used to people applying their point of view to anything they read and if someone doesn't agree with them 100%, (s)he must be of the exact opposite viewpoint as yours. Talk about narrow viewpoints.
Entertainment is not information. But some entertainment produces information that is transferable through the internet. That part is changing. For good, unless someone shuts the internet down. There is nothing to add to that. It's already happened.
No need to get into that. Tell him/her that:
Facts:
1. Information flows freely between people. There is no way around that. It's been like that since humans were first able to communicate.
2. This didn't mean much back in the days since information was tied to physical media (books, tapes...), so it was essentially not free except what you could say/listen to, which was naturally limited by our brains.
3. Information is now infinite and fast and without borders (for all intents and purposes pertaining to copyrights)
4. You can encrypt and obfuscate communications with the help of computers, beyond the reach of anyone, including the law enforcement. Hence, with little overhead, nobody can tell what you transmit over the internet, except the guy at the other end with the key/password.
Conclusion:
0. Anyone can communicate freely with everyone else, MEANS:
1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.
2. Any law trying to prevent this will just harm lawful activities on the web by making it more and more cumbersome and risky to operate a legitimate website.
3. Piracy will not be reduced or stopped by anything else that global extinction of the internet. It is detectable for some part right now because people don't bother hiding themselves. This will change quickly and without pain from the pirates.
Ah... One last thing: It doesn't mean the end of music/films/books artists, but it surely means the end of movie/films/books distributors.
You mean to say that "my iPad crashes constantly" doesn't mean that the iPad crashes? Really?
Furthermore, I can find craploads of badly written apps for every OS in existence, that crash constantly. This is so unrelated to the quality of the underlying OS that the entire sentence made no sense anyways.
I pretty much agree. Plus, upping their capacity will make them reduce power emissions from their antennas which will calm down the GSM-is-microwave freaks.
It's too 'open' and therefore, easily crackable.
Can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
That's true. If it's open, you don't need to crack it since you can take a peek inside and grab whatever the squirrel left over.
In my view, the real question should not be "should we boycott iPhones" but "which smartphone do we boycott". There is no reason Apple should be the only smarphone manufacturer under inspection, and I haven't read anywhere a comparison.
And in case they're all bad, you will never get enough people to boycott all Smartphones. But compare the manufacturers: RIM, HTC, Apple, Samsung, SONY, Nokia and you can find the worst offender. Then, you can put pressure on the worst offender.
That way, you can raise the manufacturing conditions by the bottom, which makes sense. But I somehow doubt Apple is one of the worst offender. I may be wrong.
You are correct. AJAX cannot be cross-domain.
There is however a catch, since a lots of libraries will allow you do do cross-domain "AJAX-like" request by adding a "SCRIPT" object to the page dynamically. You can't POST but you can GET fine with this method since the SCRIPT tag is cross domain.
?
You only "send your traffic" to facebook, if you choose to click on the link to Facebook.
Aaaaand, congratulations! You don't know how the Web works.
Whenever you see the "Like" facebook button, you browser has made several HTTP request to facebook and run facebook hosted scripts on your page. And if you're logged in to facebook on that computer, facebook has recorded the fact that YOU went to that page.
All of that without clicking on the button, courtesy of the website owner.
Well, we have a KICK ASS healthcare system in France. We heal a sizable portion of northern Africa with it, for free. The thing is in deficit of several billions euros every year.
Sure, we get great coverage. The the price/value ratio is very very high. Higher than in most country. Hence, I judge it poor as a whole.
As far as government is concerned, we have no federal government (point goes to the US) and the various states governments are on average completely irresponsible and utterly demagogic. Look at where we are now. We printed money for about 4k billion euros in December to be able to repay the interests of our debt.
Well, I live in the EU and I must say that apart from healthcare and government (which are linked), you're pretty much right.
I'll leave women outside the debate for now out of fear that it may degenerate. Flame wars are just so interesting.
Ah yes, and commodities are important, but people manufacturing them are not seen as "leading".
Google? Software
Apple? Software (They use the hardware to leverage their software, but their core value is software)
Amazon? Software
Microsoft? Software
Yahoo, Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Software
The way to get money from software has shifted, but believe me, you've spent more than you think. Never bought a PC or a phone or a tablet? Dude, it's more than $0.
Never forget that without roads, you'll have no cars. Yet, cars are sold by the million every month, and it generates more revenue than maintaining the current infrastructure costs.
You misunderstand the word software. The software that has the most value in the iPhone is iOS, by far, not any app you can find.
So, to you software has zéro value where hardware has all the value?
Strange viewpoint.
In all fairness, there is a heck of a lot more value in software than in hardware. Hardware is now a commodity, nothing more.
And in other news, this is one of the very very rare piece of wisdom to make it up the front page of slashdot in a long time. It's like there was a disturbance in the force... Did you feel it too?
If the thing is based on JS, CSS and HTML, I think the answer is pretty obvious: BB browser sucks ass so terribly they'd have to write one from scratch (or to port Webkit)
Modded Troll? What the hell is wrong with these people? Surely there must be a way to mod a Troll-modder?! Take away all their mod points and cookies too, damnit!
And as I learned in Sesame Street, without cookies, there is no joy !
Well, except for the fact that they didn't steal anything, you're right. Xerox gave it away. Willfully.
The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S.
Except that, AFAIK, the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with Copyright. Or was it amended?