I didn't mean for you to take my statement as directed towards you, you were just the last person I read who used that phrase before I decided to respond.
Wow, how about you stay on topic - or at least with your original point.
First Challenge: You certainly have the right not to release it at all, but what is it that gives you the right to say that due to where somebody is that they are not allowed to see it?
Where I immediately stated Distro rights. Which very much so gives me the rights to control where the material is made available.
Second Challenge: Again, I ask, what gives you the right to say that I can't come to your country (or whatever country you choose to sell it in), purchase it and returnto my country where you won't sell it.
That's not even the same thing now is it? If you want to go ahead and purchase something unavailble somewhere and then take it somewhere else, be my guest - you can definitely do that. I have patiently argued this matter with you folks and you repeatedly come up with the most asinine responses, so to respond in kind is my only option left.
Think it through. You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away
You dumb shit. WHERE DID I SAY THAT? You can't because I never said that. You can misinterpret my statements all you want and take them all as personal attacks on your delicate sensibilities, but your full of shit.
You strain the definitions and context of the argument at hand in an effort to come up with a situation that proves your point while attempting to make me look like I promote censorship. Get a fucking idea old man, with an ID that low, you should definitely be smarter than that.
The point was distro channels and how they allow you to affect DISTRIBUTION you fucking twit. DISTRIBUTION, in this context, is control over where something is made available. How the hell you mistake exercising those rights with forcibly coming into a country and taking away your property is beyond me.
Please learn some functional comprehension skills.
Here is my original statement: If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
See the word SHOWN in there, yeah - that's why it relates to distribution you fucking clown. Now please quote me on where I said SEEN. Oh, I guess I didn't. That means I was talking about legal controls granted to me by my position as the original content creator. Not some imaginary controls that I think I have to censor peoples usage of a lawfully purchased piece of property.
You are a complete idiot to misinterpret one as the other, either that or you are actively going out of your way to be offended and cater to/. groupthink to whore karma.
OK, I have seen this Thumbnail = Exceprt statement more than a few times and would like to point out something.
Unless an Image thumbnail is defined or has precedence as being used under the guise of being equivalent to an excerpt in a court of law - this "common sense" definition is worthless.
Now, I do not know if thumbnail images have been recognized as equivalent to excerpts in US courts - I'm just pointing out that it is unsound to make "logical" assumptions about things concerning law, because law is about interpretation.
Heh, this is true. Although, the underlying principles still remain even if the release of the content in this format through this distro channel is counter intuitive to that purpose.
The service is available to you. The businesss model of it is a method of delivery for the content creators. Theyare the ones who pay a transaction fee for it. Now, if they choose to pass that cost on to the end user, they can - and often do. Hence, it is available to you - it wasn't FOR you.
Nonsense.
Actually, not nonsense. It's called distribution rights. Now, these are not always mutually exclusive. If I sell distro rights, but retain copyrights I CANNOT dictate where the book is sold. But if I do retain distro rights, by not exercising my copyright's ability to let me give someone else distro rights, I can most certainly control where it is sold by not allowing distribution to those places.
Now, if a third party unlawfully takes a book and decides to sell it somewhere I didn't wish, then hey I didn't control it. But that is technically illegal even if it is often ignored.
How?
See above for distro rights.
As long as they pay you the standard licensing fee due songwriters, they can perform it any time they want to, though.
IF THEY LICENSE THE SONG. You proved my point for me, that is the control - you don't have to allow the license. Plus, a performer can perform any song live at no cost. They have to pay and get permission to record it.
Maybe on some planet. Not Earth. Nor are any of these strictures you discuss your Rights.
The existing US legal system disagrees. Now, if you are from somewhere that has different copyright laws, then your statements may be entirely true.
I agree with your statement completely. And technically the RIAA is correct, to a point.
When they begin to lock down the media is where the whole thing breaks down. In the past, copyright laws could work because of limitations in the delivery vehicle.
Digital media has the benefit of being able to be copied and distributed without having to consume anywhere near the same amount of resources as a physical vehicle. The RIAA/MIAA love that as long as they can control the distribution system. They hate it because they know they cannot.
Controlling the media is a violation of our rights as consumers, not controlling the media results in their lawful copyrights being violated. This problem will only get solved when a new business model that embraces the strengths of digital media is utilized. The continual effort of media businesses today trying to wrap non functional restrictions around new formats is futile.
My statement was to the point that the person who owns the copyright to a work has the right to dictate its distribution method.
Your statement says that the person who owns a copyright has the right to discriminate sales based on some criteria.
The reality of the matter is that digital media will always break free from its originating format, and propegate through channels not initially desired by the content's creator. That's just a reality of digital media, and I'm not going to debate those facts.
The point that I was making is that Google offers a service to the content providers as a distribution channel, and as such would have to follow some guidelines set by the original works owner. Please don't mistake the service being available to you as the same as for you. The end user is the product, being sold to the content creator through Googles channel.
You have no such right.
Uhh, actually, I do. If I make and produce a movie, I get to decide which theaters it's shown in. If I write a book, I can dictate which bookstores it is sold in. If I write a song, I can dictate which record stores can sell it, which bands can record it, and if it can be used in any other multimedia.
That is how it exists today. Your argument is knee jerk and wasted, get over it.
If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
Google is just playing the game they have to play to get people to offer up their content. Google holds no rights to anything on google video, the poster usually does (if its original). Google would get sued faster than you could say "Evil" if they DID assume rights to user posted content.
I was doing remote scripting back in the late 90's. When I began to hear all of this "AJAX" marketing crap I thought to myself "I have known how to do that for a while."
Now, it most certainly is easier to implement now, but the technology is far from cutting edge rocket science. As far as I can remember, I couldn't do "AJAX" work on an Apache server, only ISS back then.
I will admit though that it may be because I didn't know how to do the same thing with JSP, only ASP.
It may not be fraud, but it is against Googles terms of service. They broke the rules, they get delisted. Its a company, they can do what they want with their listings. The point isn't the different content per users, but showing different content to a spider as related to everyone else.
May I also point out that/.ers will scream their heads off at SEO because they can't separate legitimate techniques from unethical ones. Now that a big company has gotten busted for unethical behavior, and yeah - content redirects for spiders only is unethical, people are screaming that Google is doing evil.
People, make up your minds. You may not like what Google is doing, but they are a company - and listing with them is not a right. They have a well defined list of behaviors they wish your site not to exhibit, and the consequences of such behavior is stated. You break the rules, you pay. Your business suffers because of it? You should have followed the rules.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had to UNDO some previous SEO asshats work. There is a way to get the rankings you desire, focused traffic, stay on the search engines good side, and not corrupt unrelated search term rankings.
Well, part of the reason that alot of layouts are broken is because Mozilla and its Ilk put the remainder margin space (if you give a non equally divisible value) on the bottom of an element. IE puts it on the top. This may not seem like much, but it will wreak havoc on your layouts when your Margins collapse.
I'm not sure placement of the remainder is layed out in the standard, but I may be wrong.
Oh, and you should build for Mozilla and then fix IE, it's hella easier to do it that way than the other way around.
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
There are so many serial killers that we need an unconstitutional department costing us US$5 billion a year? Murder is NOT a federal crime, per the Constitution. Let the states handle it.
The reason this is done on a federal level is because states would have to define "serial." Not all Psychologists can agree on what makes a killer a serial killer. To some it is the number of homicides committed, to others it must include a repeated methodology or victim profile, even others say it must exclude any evidence of mental disorder.
This could quickly lead to states having varying definitions of "serial murderers" and their investigative process. This would result in the whole process being slowed as two state agencies have to negotiate their co-operation tactics and parameters. All the while the number of victims will be increasing.
Also, the FBI maintains the Serial Killer database. If this database allows police from multiple areas to enter information regarding homicides and extract information based off of those parameters. If this database was not kept centralized and governed by a federal agency, it would quickly degrade into a system of no standardization - and that would make it useless. Also, no one would be responsible if it failed.
I can just see two state CTO's arguing over whose side of the line the problem is on - yeah, thats efficient.
Last, the FBI does not come to investigate serial killers in a state until requested to. They do not just come swooping into a local police stations and take control of any murder investigation that they deem as being "serial". Do not get this confused with them coming into a municipality and taking all information regarding a murder if it is in conjunction with a case they are already investigating - that is a different circumstance all together.
FBI handling of Serial Killer investigations is completely justified.
Yeah, my research into the support was pretty shallow. But I do know that Microsoft offers free tech support for desktops for the first two calls.
I really have no idea if Unbuntu has on demand phone in support or if you have to wait for them to call you back. But on demand is really what end users want.
But, I'm not really a Linux guy - so I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject. I have been itching to try it out, but I really don't have the time to try and set up a machine. I also don't have time to configure things I really don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, I agree - which was in the spirit of what I was trying to say.
To address the abolishonists I wanted a concise definition so that the point could be discussed with clear definitions, not a plyable grey area.
For the defenders, I wanted a clear point on what they were defending.
As for the way it is class, well - I wanted to have a starting point to work from for pushing the discussion into a more "how it should be" direction.
I didn't mean for you to take my statement as directed towards you, you were just the last person I read who used that phrase before I decided to respond.
Thank You for the info.
Wow, how about you stay on topic - or at least with your original point.
/. groupthink to whore karma.
First Challenge:
You certainly have the right not to release it at all, but what is it that gives you the right to say that due to where somebody is that they are not allowed to see it?
Where I immediately stated Distro rights. Which very much so gives me the rights to control where the material is made available.
Second Challenge:
Again, I ask, what gives you the right to say that I can't come to your country (or whatever country you choose to sell it in), purchase it and returnto my country where you won't sell it.
That's not even the same thing now is it? If you want to go ahead and purchase something unavailble somewhere and then take it somewhere else, be my guest - you can definitely do that. I have patiently argued this matter with you folks and you repeatedly come up with the most asinine responses, so to respond in kind is my only option left.
Think it through. You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away
You dumb shit. WHERE DID I SAY THAT? You can't because I never said that. You can misinterpret my statements all you want and take them all as personal attacks on your delicate sensibilities, but your full of shit.
You strain the definitions and context of the argument at hand in an effort to come up with a situation that proves your point while attempting to make me look like I promote censorship. Get a fucking idea old man, with an ID that low, you should definitely be smarter than that.
The point was distro channels and how they allow you to affect DISTRIBUTION you fucking twit. DISTRIBUTION, in this context, is control over where something is made available. How the hell you mistake exercising those rights with forcibly coming into a country and taking away your property is beyond me.
Please learn some functional comprehension skills.
Here is my original statement:
If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
See the word SHOWN in there, yeah - that's why it relates to distribution you fucking clown. Now please quote me on where I said SEEN. Oh, I guess I didn't. That means I was talking about legal controls granted to me by my position as the original content creator. Not some imaginary controls that I think I have to censor peoples usage of a lawfully purchased piece of property.
You are a complete idiot to misinterpret one as the other, either that or you are actively going out of your way to be offended and cater to
OK, I have seen this Thumbnail = Exceprt statement more than a few times and would like to point out something.
Unless an Image thumbnail is defined or has precedence as being used under the guise of being equivalent to an excerpt in a court of law - this "common sense" definition is worthless.
Now, I do not know if thumbnail images have been recognized as equivalent to excerpts in US courts - I'm just pointing out that it is unsound to make "logical" assumptions about things concerning law, because law is about interpretation.
Heh, this is true. Although, the underlying principles still remain even if the release of the content in this format through this distro channel is counter intuitive to that purpose.
Distribution rights.
This isn't discrimination, this is distribution rights. A waterfountain is not covered by the same laws
Now, If I build a water fountain in my home - I most certainly can dictate who can and cannot use it. That's called private property rights.
Huh?
The service is available to you. The businesss model of it is a method of delivery for the content creators. Theyare the ones who pay a transaction fee for it. Now, if they choose to pass that cost on to the end user, they can - and often do. Hence, it is available to you - it wasn't FOR you.
Nonsense.
Actually, not nonsense. It's called distribution rights. Now, these are not always mutually exclusive. If I sell distro rights, but retain copyrights I CANNOT dictate where the book is sold. But if I do retain distro rights, by not exercising my copyright's ability to let me give someone else distro rights, I can most certainly control where it is sold by not allowing distribution to those places.
Now, if a third party unlawfully takes a book and decides to sell it somewhere I didn't wish, then hey I didn't control it. But that is technically illegal even if it is often ignored.
How?
See above for distro rights.
As long as they pay you the standard licensing fee due songwriters, they can perform it any time they want to, though.
IF THEY LICENSE THE SONG. You proved my point for me, that is the control - you don't have to allow the license. Plus, a performer can perform any song live at no cost. They have to pay and get permission to record it.
Maybe on some planet. Not Earth. Nor are any of these strictures you discuss your Rights.
The existing US legal system disagrees. Now, if you are from somewhere that has different copyright laws, then your statements may be entirely true.
I agree with your statement completely. And technically the RIAA is correct, to a point.
When they begin to lock down the media is where the whole thing breaks down. In the past, copyright laws could work because of limitations in the delivery vehicle.
Digital media has the benefit of being able to be copied and distributed without having to consume anywhere near the same amount of resources as a physical vehicle. The RIAA/MIAA love that as long as they can control the distribution system. They hate it because they know they cannot.
Controlling the media is a violation of our rights as consumers, not controlling the media results in their lawful copyrights being violated. This problem will only get solved when a new business model that embraces the strengths of digital media is utilized. The continual effort of media businesses today trying to wrap non functional restrictions around new formats is futile.
That is a crazy jump in Logic.
My statement was to the point that the person who owns the copyright to a work has the right to dictate its distribution method.
Your statement says that the person who owns a copyright has the right to discriminate sales based on some criteria.
The reality of the matter is that digital media will always break free from its originating format, and propegate through channels not initially desired by the content's creator. That's just a reality of digital media, and I'm not going to debate those facts.
The point that I was making is that Google offers a service to the content providers as a distribution channel, and as such would have to follow some guidelines set by the original works owner. Please don't mistake the service being available to you as the same as for you. The end user is the product, being sold to the content creator through Googles channel.
You have no such right.
Uhh, actually, I do. If I make and produce a movie, I get to decide which theaters it's shown in. If I write a book, I can dictate which bookstores it is sold in. If I write a song, I can dictate which record stores can sell it, which bands can record it, and if it can be used in any other multimedia.
That is how it exists today. Your argument is knee jerk and wasted, get over it.
They may give back freedoms, but they love to keep the legislation.
I'm still waiting for them to repeal the Income Tax.
Should read:
Blah, Blah, Blah...(Lame joke about XHTML...it's not even worth it)
Yeah, but didn't Mitnick have to write his book on a stone tablet or something?
I thought they said he couldn't touch anything that ran on electricity. That would most definitely suck.
(Ohhhhh, now I'm XHTML compliant too!)
If I create a video and I don't want it shown somewhere, then I should have the right to dictate that.
Google is just playing the game they have to play to get people to offer up their content. Google holds no rights to anything on google video, the poster usually does (if its original). Google would get sued faster than you could say "Evil" if they DID assume rights to user posted content.
Lack of supply != Huge Demand.
I was doing remote scripting back in the late 90's. When I began to hear all of this "AJAX" marketing crap I thought to myself "I have known how to do that for a while."
Now, it most certainly is easier to implement now, but the technology is far from cutting edge rocket science. As far as I can remember, I couldn't do "AJAX" work on an Apache server, only ISS back then.
I will admit though that it may be because I didn't know how to do the same thing with JSP, only ASP.
It may not be fraud, but it is against Googles terms of service. They broke the rules, they get delisted. Its a company, they can do what they want with their listings. The point isn't the different content per users, but showing different content to a spider as related to everyone else.
/.ers will scream their heads off at SEO because they can't separate legitimate techniques from unethical ones. Now that a big company has gotten busted for unethical behavior, and yeah - content redirects for spiders only is unethical, people are screaming that Google is doing evil.
May I also point out that
People, make up your minds. You may not like what Google is doing, but they are a company - and listing with them is not a right. They have a well defined list of behaviors they wish your site not to exhibit, and the consequences of such behavior is stated. You break the rules, you pay. Your business suffers because of it? You should have followed the rules.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had to UNDO some previous SEO asshats work. There is a way to get the rankings you desire, focused traffic, stay on the search engines good side, and not corrupt unrelated search term rankings.
Well, part of the reason that alot of layouts are broken is because Mozilla and its Ilk put the remainder margin space (if you give a non equally divisible value) on the bottom of an element. IE puts it on the top. This may not seem like much, but it will wreak havoc on your layouts when your Margins collapse.
I'm not sure placement of the remainder is layed out in the standard, but I may be wrong.
Oh, and you should build for Mozilla and then fix IE, it's hella easier to do it that way than the other way around.
Yes, but can one of those virgins be a boy?
I think thats something both sides can agree on, at least it's a start.
Oh man, I said that once....
Nope. Just pro-ambulating buggies.
KAPOW!
My first slashdot spelling nazi trap! Whooo hooo!
Kinda lame actually.
Ummm.
entemology + history + critical thinking = getting the joke.
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
There are so many serial killers that we need an unconstitutional department costing us US$5 billion a year? Murder is NOT a federal crime, per the Constitution. Let the states handle it.
The reason this is done on a federal level is because states would have to define "serial." Not all Psychologists can agree on what makes a killer a serial killer. To some it is the number of homicides committed, to others it must include a repeated methodology or victim profile, even others say it must exclude any evidence of mental disorder.
This could quickly lead to states having varying definitions of "serial murderers" and their investigative process. This would result in the whole process being slowed as two state agencies have to negotiate their co-operation tactics and parameters. All the while the number of victims will be increasing.
Also, the FBI maintains the Serial Killer database. If this database allows police from multiple areas to enter information regarding homicides and extract information based off of those parameters. If this database was not kept centralized and governed by a federal agency, it would quickly degrade into a system of no standardization - and that would make it useless. Also, no one would be responsible if it failed.
I can just see two state CTO's arguing over whose side of the line the problem is on - yeah, thats efficient.
Last, the FBI does not come to investigate serial killers in a state until requested to. They do not just come swooping into a local police stations and take control of any murder investigation that they deem as being "serial". Do not get this confused with them coming into a municipality and taking all information regarding a murder if it is in conjunction with a case they are already investigating - that is a different circumstance all together.
FBI handling of Serial Killer investigations is completely justified.
Yeah, my research into the support was pretty shallow. But I do know that Microsoft offers free tech support for desktops for the first two calls.
I really have no idea if Unbuntu has on demand phone in support or if you have to wait for them to call you back. But on demand is really what end users want.
But, I'm not really a Linux guy - so I'm not all that knowledgable on the subject. I have been itching to try it out, but I really don't have the time to try and set up a machine. I also don't have time to configure things I really don't understand.