copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware
That's where all this will end up. You won't be able to buy a computer without the DRM hardware installed, and it will be illegal/impossible to remove/alter.
Not in the MMROPG sense, where guilds are glamorized, but rather, in the medical sense, where you had to be a member of a guild to practice your trade or you lost not only the fruits of your labors but body parts as well, and which feuded with each other over their domains.
These days, we call them mega-corporations, and instead of guild charters, we've got copyright and patent laws, but the model of how the field does things would be recognizable by a stone mason from the sixteenth century.
The most appropriate regulation for the 'net would be of two parts:
1. There shall be common standards that may be utilized by anyone without cost. 2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going. 2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data. 3. There shall not be any more regulation imposed on the 'net.
But... we'll never get this. Why? Because the powers that be can go full time on their efforts to control; the politicians who are bought and the folks doing the buying don't need to take time to go to work - that is their work. Just as the mega-corporations who are fighting for their own control don't have to spend their evenings taking care of the kids.
I think that you are correct. The Ownership Society type folks never stop pushing. Sometimes they wind up playing a three card monte, but they never stop.
In a true democratic west, there's be an opposition that introduced true net neutrality and freedom type legislation in response to this. But it seems that the west sold democracy to the highest corporate bidder some years ago. We're only really noticing now.
You're being sarcastic, but you're actually right on the mark.
This one gets beat, another one will surface.
The politicians and the people who buy them never tire - it's their job and the foundation of their wealth and power to keep pushing.
For the rest of us, for the population at large, we've got daily jobs, we've got kids and all of that. So, yeah, it can be difficult to keep pushing back.
And it's made worse by the fact that we've allowed ourselves to all too often automatically reject activists as some sort of fringe; those who would lead the fight on our behalf are all too often not supported. We listen to the media tear them down; we fight against our own self interests.
However, in this case, let's note that the shooters had already engaged law enforcement, who had said that the observers weren't doing anything illegal.
So, in the analogy where I've got a camera on the beach, you've already called the cops, and they've said, nope, it's legal.
So you are claiming that it sill might be your right to smash my camera on the beach? And that it might not be a criminal act?
So, does that mean I can smash up your stuff on say, a public beach?
Also, note that the "hunters" in question were shooting birds being released from boxes. There was little of the hunt about this. Kind of like a clay pigeon shoot, but with live birds. So, while I support the second amendment, let's not pretend that these were noble hunters foraging for food for their families.
Well, this was a "live pigeon shoot". Instead of shooting at clay pigeons, they shoot live birds for target practice. No one eats the remains. So, regardless of any other arguments here, let's not pretend that these folks were on some sort of hunt for food, or really, on a hunt at all.
"I don't know the law, and didn't read TFA, but I don't agree with the activists, and therefore think that there Should Be A Law (tm) that they can be charged with. And publicly flogged."
Regardless of how one feels about this particular issue, your thinking is extremely dangerous to a law based form of government.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analysis is close, but misses the key point.
copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware
That's where all this will end up. You won't be able to buy a computer without the DRM hardware installed, and it will be illegal/impossible to remove/alter.
We, those who built, maintain and understand the internet, say so.
If we really are out by then, Blackwater^W Xe will need something to do.
Long before that, they'll come from Afghanistan, in all likelihood:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-earths
(which may explain a few things...)
No wonder you get branded as terrorist pirates.
... this probably won't make much legal hay in the end, it may be an extremely effective form of protest.
Good on them.
But Samsung owns the patent for the sun setting. Meaning that the sun is stuck midway in the sky, can't rise or set, and everybody loses.
We must invade Canada!
More like guild rivalry.
Not in the MMROPG sense, where guilds are glamorized, but rather, in the medical sense, where you had to be a member of a guild to practice your trade or you lost not only the fruits of your labors but body parts as well, and which feuded with each other over their domains.
These days, we call them mega-corporations, and instead of guild charters, we've got copyright and patent laws, but the model of how the field does things would be recognizable by a stone mason from the sixteenth century.
Also concur. Get out before they drag you down with them, and ruin your chances for another gig.
Ack - I can't count. Guess that's why I'll never run the 'net *sheepish look*
The most appropriate regulation for the 'net would be of two parts:
1. There shall be common standards that may be utilized by anyone without cost.
2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.
3. There shall not be any more regulation imposed on the 'net.
But... we'll never get this. Why? Because the powers that be can go full time on their efforts to control; the politicians who are bought and the folks doing the buying don't need to take time to go to work - that is their work. Just as the mega-corporations who are fighting for their own control don't have to spend their evenings taking care of the kids.
What I fear is that we'll wind up having to chose our poisons.
Because it looks like there's no way in hell that it will be left in the hands of those who built it, maintain it and understand it.
Slashdotted from high orbit, I guess....
I think that you are correct. The Ownership Society type folks never stop pushing. Sometimes they wind up playing a three card monte, but they never stop.
In a true democratic west, there's be an opposition that introduced true net neutrality and freedom type legislation in response to this. But it seems that the west sold democracy to the highest corporate bidder some years ago. We're only really noticing now.
You're being sarcastic, but you're actually right on the mark.
This one gets beat, another one will surface.
The politicians and the people who buy them never tire - it's their job and the foundation of their wealth and power to keep pushing.
For the rest of us, for the population at large, we've got daily jobs, we've got kids and all of that. So, yeah, it can be difficult to keep pushing back.
And it's made worse by the fact that we've allowed ourselves to all too often automatically reject activists as some sort of fringe; those who would lead the fight on our behalf are all too often not supported. We listen to the media tear them down; we fight against our own self interests.
As would Orwell.
Attack your opponent with what your opponent should be attacking you on.
Turn the truth and the meanings of words completely around.
It goes so far beyond lying that I'm not sure that there's a word for it outside of a Newspeak dictioary.
But they don't deny the existence of said things. Unlike Republicans.
However, in this case, let's note that the shooters had already engaged law enforcement, who had said that the observers weren't doing anything illegal.
So, in the analogy where I've got a camera on the beach, you've already called the cops, and they've said, nope, it's legal.
So you are claiming that it sill might be your right to smash my camera on the beach? And that it might not be a criminal act?
Just Vandalism.
Vandalism: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism
So, does that mean I can smash up your stuff on say, a public beach?
Also, note that the "hunters" in question were shooting birds being released from boxes. There was little of the hunt about this. Kind of like a clay pigeon shoot, but with live birds. So, while I support the second amendment, let's not pretend that these were noble hunters foraging for food for their families.
Is releasing drugged game from boxes and then shooting them at close range really hunting?
Well, this was a "live pigeon shoot". Instead of shooting at clay pigeons, they shoot live birds for target practice. No one eats the remains. So, regardless of any other arguments here, let's not pretend that these folks were on some sort of hunt for food, or really, on a hunt at all.
Because, you know, all the energy that the pellets loses as they rise upwards is lost and not regained at all when the pellets fall back to the Earth.
"I don't know the law, and didn't read TFA, but I don't agree with the activists, and therefore think that there Should Be A Law (tm) that they can be charged with. And publicly flogged."
Regardless of how one feels about this particular issue, your thinking is extremely dangerous to a law based form of government.