Why is everyone so intent on "disproving this myth" that there is an IT talent shortage? Don't you people know this gives you leverage when you negotiate your salary?
Did you read the article, or did you just see the title and make a knee-jerk post? The article is about increasingly strict copyright laws stifling new creative efforts.
I read the article and I realize that.
I am merely suggesting that these laws have been around for a long time and obviously they aren't stopping people from being creative, given the amount of media we find ourselves surronded in.
Take a look around you at what comes out of the movie and music industry. Most of it isn't necessarily bad per se, but much of it does have a bland, cookie-cutter sameness about it.
Sure, if you look at say the Top 40 music or the large movie releases, but they, by necessity have to appeal to the most people. I find that small "arthouse" movies and local bands are as creative and vital as ever.
I'm curious, what do you say to the article's claims that George Lucas will not allow new artists to borrow from Star Wars the same way he borrowed from Kurasawa and from popular myth?
I say the claims are way overrated. What, is Lucas going to complain about someone else's excessive use of wipes between scenes, which he borrowed, or the next space movie that starts with a pan down to a spaceship? No... he couldn't if he wanted to... Should he sue if someone comes out with a Boba Fett movie? Damn straight.
What do you say to the article's claims that for (certain types of) new music to evolve they must be able to sample from previous music the way that music lifted guitar riffs and other musical elements from music that came before?
I say every instance of sampling I've heard in music is horrible and if the practice dies, well, it hasn't been soon enough.
Why, in your own words, is it ok for the current gatekeepers to have borrowed from work that came before, but it is no longer acceptable for anyone to borrow from work that is currently popular?
The so called "gatekeepers" only have "borrowed" from items that have expired their copyright. People in the future will be free to do the same. When copyrights are extended though law they are extended for everyone, not just the "gatekeepers".
Why was it necessary to extend lengths of copyrights?
Becuase at the time copyright law was originally devised it was not likely that the lawmakers saw that there would be any value to work manufactured in the distant past. I oppose the government taking away someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
Were artists really having trouble making money with the shorter terms, or are they just trying to guarantee their continued dominance into the indefinite future?
Well, lets see, Shakespeare didn't have copyright, and he hardly died a rich man. I'd say they are legitimately asking to be rewarded for their works. If people are still willing to pay for them, the artist or copyright owner should still get their cut.
Try as you might, you simply aren't going to get me to feel sorry for the media compaines.
Well, I don't have much sympathy for the "I don't want to pay for stuff" crowd either.
However, if I don't like the crap they're churning out, I would like an alternative,
You have the best alternative, don't buy it.
But, then, God forbid anyone consider anything besides corporate profit in determining social policy or anything.
I should hope not, the two don't have a damn thing to do with each other.
Lets see there are more books in print, more music in circulation, more movies in existance, and more software out there today than in any point in history.
Yep, those darn IP laws must be stifling things. Help I'm being repressed! God forbid anyone make money from their work or anything.
I thought at the time of registering the site of doing a site relating to the affects and some information about helping addicted cocaine users since a friend of mine died from it.
Suuuuure......
Oh, and my Coke can in front of me says that Coke is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.
If colleges run into problems its time to say "You are suspended for the rest of the semester if we catch you using this software", rather than subsidizing peoples pirated music collections.
I will agree that as far as nonfiction goes, the web will pretty much overtake the traditional publishers, due to reasons of economics and timliness (why buy a dictionary when you can get webster's online, in its current edition for free). There may even be a place for subscription based services for the really expansive works (see the newly subscribable OED online... $595 a year, but much cheaper than a "real" set of the OED, and much easier to use... and no magnifying glass either:) )
What Katz has failed to address here (and this isn't a knock on him, no one else has quite figured this one out either), is how online publishing works an editorial factor into everything. Look at the (free) mp3 sites out there... tons of music, anyone can put stuff out there... and 99.9% of it is crap. Record labels, if nothing else, provide a filter that while it doesn't ensure that everything is quality, gets rid of a great deal of chaff. Book publishing is the same way... Sure, King probably doesn't need to publish online if he doesn't want to and has a large, already established audience, but how does an online "publisher" separate the signal (a good work) from the noise (the other 99% of stuff out there?)
Plus, I don't want intereactivity in my fictional stores... what will this lead to? Serialized fiction where people provide their input into the work? And you think the LCD stuff that comes out of hollywood after tons of test screenings to provide audience "input" is bad? Wait till Joe Blow gets to go.. well, I liked the Green Mile, Mr. King, but does he have to die at the end???
Of course there will be, and people will use the same stupid arguments they use while they are downloading their illegal MP3s...
1) Man, the publishers make all the money, not the poor authors who only make.25 per book, so I'm not hurting anyone 2) There's only a few good pages in each book, why should I have to pay for the whole book. 3) I've gone out and bought lots of books after reading pirated versions, so they shouldn't complain. 4) I don't have the money to buy all the books I want to they really aren't losing a sale... 5) Piracy is such a loaded term... use "unauthorized copying" (thanks RMS!)
Basically, what it boils down to is that the servers I maintain are private property. If I post a tresspassing notice on them (or the state sets some sort of tresspassing laws), they ought to be obeyed, and the government ought to support those rules.
You already have the right to sue the spammer if he "tresspasses on your private property", as you do for any other tort. Do we really need to make this sort of thing a criminal offense?
I always thought that sales taxes were regressive because the poor typically spend a higher proportion of their income and therefore pay a proportionally higher percentage of the tax.
Look, either people are really concerned about online privacy or they aren't. Let the market take care of it. People are either worried about this stuff or not, and if they are they won't buy from companies without good and well publicized privacy statements. If they aren't worried about it, well, the world will look like it does right now. Personally, I think most people just don't care... I know I don't.
Here is a little thought experiement for you. Imagine a product, a widget. Now this widget comes in 2 versions. The two versions are exactly the same with the exception that with one you have to give up some personal information to buy the widget, but get $X off. You give up all rights to this information, but other than that the two products are the same in all respects. What value of X will you buy that widget? This gives you a idea of what value people place on their privacy. I imagine for most people X is around $5 or so....
Its probably something like 99.9% accurate on.com sites and 99.5% accurate overall, but it hurts these overzealous "censorship" types to point that out, so they break out their statistics into these weird, nonsensical categories. I mean, its not like anyone surfs.edu sites only, so what does it matter what the accuracy rate is on only those sites?
Oh look, I'm being lectured by a corporate stooge with the brain of a pea.
Oh look, I'm being lectured either by a misplaced hippie or a clueless "the man is down on me" type.
<i>One of the explicitly mentioned consequences was e-commerce websites would deny access to people who didn't turn on the stinking number</i>
Riiiight... like someone is not going to see you something over the net because you don't have the appropriate chip. Snicker.
<i>As for the Northwest case, the subpoena was a farce. There was nothing ILLEGAL done, but corporate lawyers managed to lie hard enough to the judge to get access to those PC's. </i>
Wow, maybe the defense in that case should suponena you since you apparently know so much about the case.
<i>Re:They couldn't pay me enough (Score:1) by Travoltus (travoltus@hot.mail.com) on Wednesday March 08, @19:47 CST (#73) (User Info) (Moderators please look the other way. The boy asked for it.)
Oh look, I'm being lectured by a corporate stooge with the brain of a pea.
"Big Brother Inside" happens to be a correct term, lackey boy. Intel originally intended each person who used a Pentium III to be trackable in online transactions, as well as ensuring the chip was running at the speed it was intended for. One of the explicitly mentioned consequences was e-commerce websites would deny access to people who didn't turn on the stinking number. So yes, you are clueless about life - "Big Brother Inside" is right on the mark.
As for the Northwest case, the subpoena was a farce. There was nothing ILLEGAL done, but corporate lawyers managed to lie hard enough to the judge to get access to those PC's. And my computer won't ever get searched. My email disappears once a week and all free space is rewritten over. The best anyone will get is a 1 day URL browsing history.
<i>As for therapy, how about you get a clue transplant? It's sheep like you who baaaaaaaaah and graze on the pasture while the wolves are snatching your freedoms away, one at a time </i>
Oh thank goodness some luser on/. is here to bitch about me losing the freedom to, um, oh yeah, to prevent heartless corporations from giving away computers. Fight the power, man!
<i>I'd love to meet you in the street so I could see you get laughed at. Tool.</i>
Slashdot Mirror
I'm scared by this
Really, you think this is scary? Why? No one is going to force you to press the button... There are tons of keyboard manufacturers out there.
Sorry, I don't think I'll be seeing this after eating too much sardeen and olive pizza and falling asleep.
I've seen at least 5 examples of E-Commerce sites running Windows NT/IIS that were hacked and had their credit card databases stolen
Could you name them, please?
If the only thing that is keeping you in your current job is the fact that you are the low bidder to do the work, you deserve to be flipping burgers.
That's funny, I know lots of people who make more than 60k.....
Why is everyone so intent on "disproving this myth" that there is an IT talent shortage? Don't you people know this gives you leverage when you negotiate your salary?
Did you read the article, or did you just see the title and make a knee-jerk post? The article is about increasingly strict copyright laws stifling new creative efforts.
I read the article and I realize that.
I am merely suggesting that these laws have been around for a long time and obviously they aren't stopping people from being creative, given the amount of media we find ourselves surronded in.
Take a look around you at what comes out of the movie and music industry. Most of it isn't necessarily bad per se, but much of it does have a bland, cookie-cutter sameness about it.
Sure, if you look at say the Top 40 music or the large movie releases, but they, by necessity have to appeal to the most people. I find that small "arthouse" movies and local bands are as creative and vital as ever.
I'm curious, what do you say to the article's claims that George Lucas will not allow new artists to borrow from Star Wars the same way he borrowed from Kurasawa and from popular myth?
I say the claims are way overrated. What, is Lucas going to complain about someone else's excessive use of wipes between scenes, which he borrowed, or the next space movie that starts with a pan down to a spaceship? No... he couldn't if he wanted to... Should he sue if someone comes out with a Boba Fett movie? Damn straight.
What do you say to the article's claims that for (certain types of) new music to evolve they must be able to sample from previous music the way that music lifted guitar riffs and other musical elements from music that came before?
I say every instance of sampling I've heard in music is horrible and if the practice dies, well, it hasn't been soon enough.
Why, in your own words, is it ok for the current gatekeepers to have borrowed from work that came before, but it is no longer acceptable for anyone to borrow from work that is currently popular?
The so called "gatekeepers" only have "borrowed" from items that have expired their copyright. People in the future will be free to do the same. When copyrights are extended though law they are extended for everyone, not just the "gatekeepers".
Why was it necessary to extend lengths of copyrights?
Becuase at the time copyright law was originally devised it was not likely that the lawmakers saw that there would be any value to work manufactured in the distant past. I oppose the government taking away someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
Were artists really having trouble making money with the shorter terms, or are they just trying to guarantee their continued dominance into the indefinite future?
Well, lets see, Shakespeare didn't have copyright, and he hardly died a rich man. I'd say they are legitimately asking to be rewarded for their works. If people are still willing to pay for them, the artist or copyright owner should still get their cut.
Try as you might, you simply aren't going to get me to feel sorry for the media compaines.
Well, I don't have much sympathy for the "I don't want to pay for stuff" crowd either.
However, if I don't like the crap they're churning out, I would like an alternative,
You have the best alternative, don't buy it.
But, then, God forbid anyone consider anything besides corporate profit in determining social policy or anything.
I should hope not, the two don't have a damn thing to do with each other.
Most colas taste pretty much the same anyway
Next thing you will be saying the Budweiser and Guiness are substitutes as well....
If Coke gave away their recipe, do you honestly think I'm going to brew up my own batch of Coke when I'm thirsty?"
No, they think Pepsi, or someone else, would brew the same stuff, sell it at half the price and kill their profit margins.
Lets see there are more books in print, more music in circulation, more movies in existance, and more software out there today than in any point in history.
Yep, those darn IP laws must be stifling things. Help I'm being repressed! God forbid anyone make money from their work or anything.
No, RMS is far out on the lunatic fringe for trying to force his silly idea of ethics on everyone else in the world.
What do you care what other people do with their money?
I thought at the time of registering the site of doing a site relating to the affects and some information about helping addicted cocaine users since a friend of mine died from it.
Suuuuure......
Oh, and my Coke can in front of me says that Coke is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.
If colleges run into problems its time to say "You are suspended for the rest of the semester if we catch you using this software", rather than subsidizing peoples pirated music collections.
I will agree that as far as nonfiction goes, the web will pretty much overtake the traditional publishers, due to reasons of economics and timliness (why buy a dictionary when you can get webster's online, in its current edition for free). There may even be a place for subscription based services for the really expansive works (see the newly subscribable OED online... $595 a year, but much cheaper than a "real" set of the OED, and much easier to use... and no magnifying glass either :) )
What Katz has failed to address here (and this isn't a knock on him, no one else has quite figured this one out either), is how online publishing works an editorial factor into everything. Look at the (free) mp3 sites out there... tons of music, anyone can put stuff out there... and 99.9% of it is crap. Record labels, if nothing else, provide a filter that while it doesn't ensure that everything is quality, gets rid of a great deal of chaff. Book publishing is the same way... Sure, King probably doesn't need to publish online if he doesn't want to and has a large, already established audience, but how does an online "publisher" separate the signal (a good work) from the noise (the other 99% of stuff out there?)
Plus, I don't want intereactivity in my fictional stores... what will this lead to? Serialized fiction where people provide their input into the work? And you think the LCD stuff that comes out of hollywood after tons of test screenings to provide audience "input" is bad? Wait till Joe Blow gets to go.. well, I liked the Green Mile, Mr. King, but does he have to die at the end???
..should "invent" the 2-button mouse first.. :)
Of course there will be, and people will use the same stupid arguments they use while they are downloading their illegal MP3s...
.25 per book, so I'm not hurting anyone
1) Man, the publishers make all the money, not the poor authors who only make
2) There's only a few good pages in each book, why should I have to pay for the whole book.
3) I've gone out and bought lots of books after reading pirated versions, so they shouldn't complain.
4) I don't have the money to buy all the books I want to they really aren't losing a sale...
5) Piracy is such a loaded term... use "unauthorized copying" (thanks RMS!)
Basically, what it boils down to is that the servers I maintain are private property. If I post a tresspassing notice on them (or the state sets some sort of tresspassing laws), they ought to be obeyed, and the government ought to support those rules.
You already have the right to sue the spammer if he "tresspasses on your private property", as you do for any other tort. Do we really need to make this sort of thing a criminal offense?
...my MP3 player for $20 million or whatever, I'll write free software all day too :)
I always thought that sales taxes were regressive because the poor typically spend a higher proportion of their income and therefore pay a proportionally higher percentage of the tax.
Look, either people are really concerned about online privacy or they aren't. Let the market take care of it. People are either worried about this stuff or not, and if they are they won't buy from companies without good and well publicized privacy statements. If they aren't worried about it, well, the world will look like it does right now. Personally, I think most people just don't care... I know I don't.
Here is a little thought experiement for you. Imagine a product, a widget. Now this widget comes in 2 versions. The two versions are exactly the same with the exception that with one you have to give up some personal information to buy the widget, but get $X off. You give up all rights to this information, but other than that the two products are the same in all respects. What value of X will you buy that widget? This gives you a idea of what value people place on their privacy. I imagine for most people X is around $5 or so....
Peacefire's dubious statistical methods are similar to saying a library censors all books based on the fact they don't carry one book.
They also hire workers for $8.00 an hour and force them to work as temp slaves for up to 15 months before they get benefits
Force 'em? What do they do? Put guns to their heads? Put them in chains and make them pick cotton?
Hell if that's the best job you can get in the current economy, you deserve what you get.
You mean I'd get to watch porn for a living if I become a feminist theorist? Cool, sign me up...
To bad I don't belive in that whole women are equal thing, but what the hell....
Its probably something like 99.9% accurate on .com sites and 99.5% accurate overall, but it hurts these overzealous "censorship" types to point that out, so they break out their statistics into these weird, nonsensical categories. I mean, its not like anyone surfs .edu sites only, so what does it matter what the accuracy rate is on only those sites?
Oh look, I'm being lectured by a corporate stooge with the brain of a pea.
/. is here to bitch about me losing the freedom to, um, oh yeah, to prevent heartless corporations from giving away computers. Fight the power, man!
Oh look, I'm being lectured either by a misplaced hippie or a clueless "the man is down on me" type.
<i>One of the explicitly mentioned consequences was e-commerce websites would deny access to people who didn't turn on the stinking number</i>
Riiiight... like someone is not going to see you something over the net because you don't have the appropriate chip. Snicker.
<i>As for the Northwest case, the subpoena was a farce. There was nothing ILLEGAL done, but corporate lawyers managed to lie hard enough to the judge to get access to those PC's. </i>
Wow, maybe the defense in that case should suponena you since you apparently know so much about the case.
<i>Re:They couldn't pay me enough (Score:1)
by Travoltus (travoltus@hot.mail.com) on Wednesday March 08, @19:47 CST (#73)
(User Info)
(Moderators please look the other way. The boy asked for it.)
Oh look, I'm being lectured by a corporate stooge with the brain of a pea.
"Big Brother Inside" happens to be a correct term, lackey boy. Intel originally intended each person who used a Pentium III to be trackable in online transactions, as well as ensuring the chip was running at the speed it was intended for. One of the explicitly mentioned consequences was e-commerce websites would deny access to people who didn't turn on the stinking number. So yes, you are clueless about life - "Big Brother Inside" is right on the mark.
As for the Northwest case, the subpoena was a farce. There was nothing ILLEGAL done, but corporate lawyers managed to lie hard enough to the judge to get access to those PC's. And my computer won't ever get searched. My email disappears once a week and all free space is rewritten over. The best anyone will get is a 1 day URL browsing history.
<i>As for therapy, how about you get a clue transplant? It's sheep like you who baaaaaaaaah and graze on the pasture while the wolves are snatching your freedoms away, one at a time </i>
Oh thank goodness some luser on
<i>I'd love to meet you in the street so I could see you get laughed at. Tool.</i>
Yawn.