Do we have anybody with any credible schemes to prevent this, short of shrink-wrapping magazines, which sounds like sort of a cop-out?
Why is that a cop-out? A high-tech solution (of the kind most/.ers would propose) will always have some sort of work-around, but low-tech solutions are more robust. For instance, there's a reason why electronic internet voting hasn't really taken off in many places yet: there are authentication and verification problems that simply vanish (or become much less of a problem) when you require someone to report to a polling place and physically sign in.
This low-tech shrink-wrapping solution gives publishers a choice: do they shrink-wrap their magazines and risk losing purchases from people who browse to find what to buy, or do they not shrink-wrap and risk losing purchases from people who would have otherwise bought the entire magazine, but instead are satisfied with browsing (or copying) a few pages? Publishers can choose based on what type of content they sell, and people can choose to browse and buy as they see fit. Everyone wins, and we didn't need any new laws or technological restrictions! Why is that a cop-out?
It is possible that those charged with enforcing Berne would take a different view. They might see this tax as a simple way around the "formality" requirement. But as John Mark Ockerbloom nicely points out, Berne only imposes its requirements for the minimum term. If there is a formality problem with structuring this as a tax, then the proposal could be structured to apply only beyond Berne's minimum term.
Which is exactly what they do in the bill by saying that you have no requirement to register until after 50 years, which is the minimum Berne term.
Re:blowing your load early?
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Wanna wait for him to finish first?
Of course not, this is slashdot, after all.
And BTW, the lone gunmen died, in case you haven't heard yet...
Yep - there are LOADS of them, aren't there?
What was your point, exactly?
See the other reply to my post. That little debacle with the G4's (not G3's, my bad) set the entire platform back almost a year. The worst thing that can happen to Apple now is to announce 2GHz machines, but not be able to deliver them until next year.
Even if Apple announces machines with these specs (or close to it), it's such a huge leap that people will be skeptical about ship dates until they actually ship, and with good reason.
In this case, few people actually expected DUAL 2Ghz PPC970 (G5) configurations available. Now, people are going to be less surprised on Monday.
They might be less suprised on Monday, but they'll still be suprised if they manage to ship 2GHz machines on time! (Anyone remember those >500MHz G3's?)
Do you have anything to say germaine to the discussion or are you going to make up straw men all night?
Hey, this is/. , I'm just playing to my audience. If you want good arguments, go somewhere else!
No, they don't know exactly what they're not getting. Indeed, the better "Clean Flicks" are at doing their cuts, the less they know about what they're not getting. All they know is that there's some violence and some sex in the original, or probably is. They don't know what was communicated by those scenes, what the context was, what the artist was actually trying to say.
That's the whole point. They'll end up missing some things that the director or writer wanted to communicate, but that's exactly what the Clean Flicks purchaser wanted, after all. Nobody is forcing them to skip the naughty parts, it's a choice they are making for themselves. Clean Flicks just happens to be helping them along.
Besides, for every movie like A Clockwork Orange that would likely lose so much in the "clean" version as to make it not worth watching, there are at least 10 films that will throw some gratuitous T&A in the film just to get the "R" rating. Some people may want to skip those parts, for their own reasons. Telling them they can't skip those parts is just as bad as telling someone else that they can't see any boobies, even if they want to. It's the element of choice, in my mind, that makes Clean Flicks acceptable -- if you want to watch the full version, you still can!
The EFF has a tough time defending stuff like deCSS because the first thought of many is pirating. However, software to edit out violence and sex would ALSO need to have this knowledge. I think they're using it to gain some leverage in the battle of "what are the positives of having the CSS out there."
Bingo. The reason we have VCR's today is that the Betamax was deemed to have substantial non-infringing uses. The MPAA wants us to think that there are no substantial non-infringing uses of DeCSS, and this case directly challenges that notion.
I wonder how the/. community would have reacted on a story saying "there's this company that wants to make software that can be used to censor DVD content".
If I want to see a good movie, without the sex & language, why not?
Because you're not watching the same movie. You're watching a film that's been edited to mean something entirely different to that intended by the artists who produced it.
Do the artists that produced the film have a right to force you to watch the movie all the way through, without bathroom breaks? Can they physically restrain you from pressing the "Fast-Forward" button? Or from hiring someone to do so on your behalf? Or from watching it on your 12" Black-and-white TV, without surround sound?
The argument that the artistic work has somehow diminshed through the editing doesn't hold water here, because the people who buy Clean Flicks know exactly what they are (not) getting. People who pay for movie tickets expect and deserve the whole unedited movie. People who buy Clean Flicks expect and deserve a cut-up version. What's the problem?
Schumer can sponsor a Bill. The Christian Coalition, at least until they are elected as a body to a senate seat, can only support a bill (And drop fat checks on people to get it passed.)
Except, Chuck Schumer is an Evil New York City Liberal who is only one step away from being a Commie -- at least that's what my conservative Western New York co-workers told me when he was running for senate against "Pothole" Al D'Amato.
Schumer working with the Christian Coalition certainly makes for strange bedfellows, especially since most of the people in that organization don't think much of him, although now their hatred is reserved entirely for the Junior Senator from New York, who many north of the Tappan Zee consider the bride of Satan his very self. Schumer certainly isn't doing it to get votes or money from them!
You know, the when they developed this thing called a "computer", that it put loads of women in the secretarial pool out of a job, right? Lots of those women simply found something else to do for their careers. New technology makes old technology obsolete, and if your business is based on the old technology, and you can't adapt, you die.
Unless, of course, you can buy legislation to cripple the new technology. While impeding the progress of science and the useful arts, it keeps you fat and happy. Which is all that matters, right?
Thanks for the info, Paul. Maybe someone out there noticed when it was published, but I didn't.
So, are you getting ready for the lawsuit over providing a clickable link to the DeCSS code? Or are you not worried, since you write for "respectable" rags and not for 2600?
Wired can publish the code to a computer virus, but not to DeCSS? That seems backwards to me. It seems like every day has been Opposite Day in the Tech industry lately...
"We have had to re-create our website, reformat all inventories and pay an attorney to research and take this case. We examined our alternatives and felt that we had no other choice but to pursue this action to protect our interests. This is another clear case of abuse of the DMCA by a large corporation against a small business", said Mr. Gendron.
Maybe the EFF should help with the case. Most DMCA challenges rely on techno-babble and feature long haired hippy-looking evil pirate hackers who most non-techie people wouldn't let date their daughters. This case involves grandmas and dumpsters, concepts more people can understand. This may be the case that breaks the DMCA, and the EFF should make sure that it doesn't die because it gets too expensive to pursue...
It's bourbon with mint sprigs and sugar, right? Why not just drink the bourbon straight, without the foliage? Can't say I ever had one, come to think of it.
I'll admit I was in a silly mood when I wrote that, though. I suppose anything you can drink at a racetrack can be mature, although not if they serve it with an umbrella....
But those of us who use OS X use CUPS for drinking. Large quantities of Mint Juleps, in particular, this past weekend.
And those of us out of High School who are ready for mature drinks use the Gnu/Linux Application System Software -- Enterprise Solution (GLASSES) to drink our Guinesses...
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that a cop-out? A high-tech solution (of the kind most /.ers would propose) will always have some sort of work-around, but low-tech solutions are more robust. For instance, there's a reason why electronic internet voting hasn't really taken off in many places yet: there are authentication and verification problems that simply vanish (or become much less of a problem) when you require someone to report to a polling place and physically sign in.
This low-tech shrink-wrapping solution gives publishers a choice: do they shrink-wrap their magazines and risk losing purchases from people who browse to find what to buy, or do they not shrink-wrap and risk losing purchases from people who would have otherwise bought the entire magazine, but instead are satisfied with browsing (or copying) a few pages? Publishers can choose based on what type of content they sell, and people can choose to browse and buy as they see fit. Everyone wins, and we didn't need any new laws or technological restrictions! Why is that a cop-out?
Of course not, this is slashdot, after all.
And BTW, the lone gunmen died, in case you haven't heard yet...
You obviously have never encountered Steve's Reality Distortion Field. Whatever it is that Steve is smoking, at least he's kind enough to share.
What was your point, exactly?
See the other reply to my post. That little debacle with the G4's (not G3's, my bad) set the entire platform back almost a year. The worst thing that can happen to Apple now is to announce 2GHz machines, but not be able to deliver them until next year.
Even if Apple announces machines with these specs (or close to it), it's such a huge leap that people will be skeptical about ship dates until they actually ship, and with good reason.
You're right, of course. I meant to write G4. Oh well, I'll preview next time!
They might be less suprised on Monday, but they'll still be suprised if they manage to ship 2GHz machines on time! (Anyone remember those >500MHz G3's?)
Hey, this is /. , I'm just playing to my audience. If you want good arguments, go somewhere else!
No, they don't know exactly what they're not getting. Indeed, the better "Clean Flicks" are at doing their cuts, the less they know about what they're not getting. All they know is that there's some violence and some sex in the original, or probably is. They don't know what was communicated by those scenes, what the context was, what the artist was actually trying to say.
That's the whole point. They'll end up missing some things that the director or writer wanted to communicate, but that's exactly what the Clean Flicks purchaser wanted, after all. Nobody is forcing them to skip the naughty parts, it's a choice they are making for themselves. Clean Flicks just happens to be helping them along.
Besides, for every movie like A Clockwork Orange that would likely lose so much in the "clean" version as to make it not worth watching, there are at least 10 films that will throw some gratuitous T&A in the film just to get the "R" rating. Some people may want to skip those parts, for their own reasons. Telling them they can't skip those parts is just as bad as telling someone else that they can't see any boobies, even if they want to. It's the element of choice, in my mind, that makes Clean Flicks acceptable -- if you want to watch the full version, you still can!
Fat chance, considering who wants to replace her!
Bingo. The reason we have VCR's today is that the Betamax was deemed to have substantial non-infringing uses. The MPAA wants us to think that there are no substantial non-infringing uses of DeCSS, and this case directly challenges that notion.
Very important.
Well, now your life is complete.
Because you're not watching the same movie. You're watching a film that's been edited to mean something entirely different to that intended by the artists who produced it.
Do the artists that produced the film have a right to force you to watch the movie all the way through, without bathroom breaks? Can they physically restrain you from pressing the "Fast-Forward" button? Or from hiring someone to do so on your behalf? Or from watching it on your 12" Black-and-white TV, without surround sound?
The argument that the artistic work has somehow diminshed through the editing doesn't hold water here, because the people who buy Clean Flicks know exactly what they are (not) getting. People who pay for movie tickets expect and deserve the whole unedited movie. People who buy Clean Flicks expect and deserve a cut-up version. What's the problem?
Except, Chuck Schumer is an Evil New York City Liberal who is only one step away from being a Commie -- at least that's what my conservative Western New York co-workers told me when he was running for senate against "Pothole" Al D'Amato.
Schumer working with the Christian Coalition certainly makes for strange bedfellows, especially since most of the people in that organization don't think much of him, although now their hatred is reserved entirely for the Junior Senator from New York, who many north of the Tappan Zee consider the bride of Satan his very self. Schumer certainly isn't doing it to get votes or money from them!
Unless, of course, you can buy legislation to cripple the new technology. While impeding the progress of science and the useful arts, it keeps you fat and happy. Which is all that matters, right?
The same faith? The worship of the Almighty Dollar, perhaps? Nope, with ideas this screwy and the affinity for lawyers, they must be Scientologists...
So, are you getting ready for the lawsuit over providing a clickable link to the DeCSS code? Or are you not worried, since you write for "respectable" rags and not for 2600?
Wired can publish the code to a computer virus, but not to DeCSS? That seems backwards to me. It seems like every day has been Opposite Day in the Tech industry lately...
NO CARRIER
Heh, file swapping with a modem? He deserved to get nailed!
Maybe the EFF should help with the case. Most DMCA challenges rely on techno-babble and feature long haired hippy-looking evil pirate hackers who most non-techie people wouldn't let date their daughters. This case involves grandmas and dumpsters, concepts more people can understand. This may be the case that breaks the DMCA, and the EFF should make sure that it doesn't die because it gets too expensive to pursue...
I'll admit I was in a silly mood when I wrote that, though. I suppose anything you can drink at a racetrack can be mature, although not if they serve it with an umbrella....
Indeed, if there was a (-1, pedantic) mod, I'd be banned from here quite a while ago!
And those of us out of High School who are ready for mature drinks use the Gnu/Linux Application System Software -- Enterprise Solution (GLASSES) to drink our Guinesses...
Calling Macs "MACs" is the surest way to get a wedgie from the Mac faithful...
Maybe because most of the slashdot population will listen to women who are older than they are?
Yeah, but why not IcubedT?
I guess the E=mc2 analogy is a good as any other explanation...