Getting it to hold up in court is exactly the point. Yes, I am only considering U.S. law here, but the monopolies have to be broken in the U.S. or nobody else has a chance in Hell.
The way to break crap like the DMCA is to put it into direct conflict with the 1st Amendment in such a way that the weakest points of IP are put up against the strongest points of Free Speech and Free Association. If we, the consumers, are just hapless confused victims of a messed up legal system and it is conflicting authors rights which are being considered that is exactly what happens.
So, as a hapless confused consumer, how am I to tell whether I am furthering the author's fundamental right to free expression or infringing the author's statutory copyright?
Remember? I installed Slakware back in the mid 90s. I installed Debian the first time in the late 90s. Work made Windoze the only easy choice for awhile. I got completely fed up with Windoze a few months ago and went back to Debian.
Why would I remember something which is going on in some parallel universe?
I like Debian, and I'd suggest it to anyone with the required computer skills, but not to someone without those skills. There are just too many decisions to be made.
Older women have been just about the fastest growing population of computer users in recent years. Even my wife is addicted to her Weight-watchers group.
Of course, you might get a better hearing from her if you were planning on burning a spammer at the stake, but even with filesharing I think you'd get a fair hearing.
How did they knowingly break the law? How can they tell if they've broken the law or they've just participated in our fundamental right to free association?
How do I know whether I'm stealing or whether I'm assisting someone to express their free speech rights?
There is plenty of music out there where the band is more than happy for me to download it, but I can't tell the difference. It certainly isn't the responsibility of the band which wants to be heard to give notice. This would be an intollarable imposition upon their free speech rights.
If you take, for instance, Joesph Wecker's descramble, how are you to decide whether you are helping him or hurting him?
How is the filesharer, in principle, supposed to know whether they are sharing something which is released by the author in a free speech attempt to be heard or something which the author wishes to sell?
Sure, there may be specific items which the filesharer does in fact know are intended for sale, but all I have to do in order to not know is be oblivious to mass media; which I am. I wouldn't know the difference between the latest boy band and an underground revolutionary group.
Let's assume that I want to be a nice law-abiding consumer. (quit snickering) When I find a file on Kazaa Lite how do I know whether the copyright holder wants to express their free speech right to be heard or they want to assert some obscure federal statute preventing me from hearing what they have to say?
You can't expect those who wish to use their free speech rights to put up notice. That would chill their rights to free expression in an intollarable way -- especially if what they wish to express is a political condemnation of the notion of IP.
I am put into a legal quandery. Even assuming I wish to do the right thing both morally and legally I cannot do it. Not only I, but the author have a constitutional right to free speech and assocation. The author also has a statutory right to copy. But there is no way I can distingush between the author who is asserting their constitional right and the author who is asserting their statutory right.
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
"Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way."
You seem to be totally unaware of the major labels' sales figures verses the sales of the Independent labels over the last year.
While the RIAA members are whining about poor sales the independents are having a banner year.
My daughter uses Kazaa to hunt down really strange stuff from individual artists, and has been doing this for years now. (Why not Kazaa Lite, I ask?) I'd guess that she has an occasional song the RIAA would have claim to, but the ratio is certainly less than 1 in 10.
Furthermore, how are you to tell if the author is asserting their free speech right to be heard or is asserting some obscure federal statute?
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
just to have the PC Linux certified. It's a pain in the butt trying to figure out what sort of crappy hardware they've stuck in the machine and whether anyone who'd been stuck with same was mad enough to write a driver.
Of course, not paying the M$ tax would always be a good idea...
I'd have to agree with this. The only versions of Linux I've ever installed are Slackware and Debian (I use Debian now), but I would never suggest either of them for a beginner. With Debian it's not just the initial installation that's an issue. I have an embarassment of riches with Debian and generally have to figure out what flavor of just about anything it is that I want to install. A newbie needs an OS where you don't have to decide every little detail about what you want.
"The fact is, most support is of the getting-started variety. Do you expect those people to pay for support *before* they have their software working? Or do you help them get set up for free, after which they have little need for support?"
Generally, the software and the support is sold as a package -- so yes, people are expected to pay for support before they have their software working.
No, but you have thrown in an extra twist. There's a difference between assuming that a coin is fair and determining by experimentation if a coin is fair. Both are concerned with the probability that the coin will turn up heads over repeated trials.
If you follow the note and the link to the prosecutor's fallacy in the Wikipedia entry you provided for likelihood you will find a discussion more in line with the problem the astronomers face in determining whether our rock will hit the Earth. Don't let time confuse you. Our rock either will or will not hit the Earth, and celestial mechanics is sufficiently well behaved that this has already been decided (barring intervention with a light sail or such). We just don't know what the result is.
BTW -- The discussion of the prosecutor's fallacy gives some of the flavor of the problems the soft sciences were having at the beginning of the 20th century. They were doing things like computing likelihoods and then treating them as probabilities -- effectively creating circular arguments.
I believe the correct term is 'likelihood', not 'pseudo-probability'. It's been a long time since I've studied this crap. It's the type of stuff which is very important when you are examining an experimental method to ensure that it is valid. The rest of the time it is just boringly technical.
Lot's of early Sociology (etc.) was screwed up because of confusion over the distinction between likelihood and probability. Clearing this stuff up led to things like double-blind testing of drugs.
Turtle theory isn't a physical theory. It's closer to being a psychological theory. Turtle theory is about how concepts fail by dividing what cannot be properly divided. That is, by being concepts.
I'm not much of a physicist, but I believe there are a couple of competing descriptions of strings which 'look' very different but which mathematically can be reduced to each other. That is, conceptually they describe very different universes but physically they describe the same universe. (I'm not even sure it is string theory which currently has this problem.)
Hey! Turtle Theory is really a much better theory than you think. Turtle Theory says that there are no fundamental distinctions, but as soon as you pretend there is a fundamental distinction by coming up with a word -- any word at all, such as 'turtle' -- then it's turtles all the way down. It's a comment upon mistaking the map for the territory. (It is also an old Buddhist cosmology, I think from the 1st century A.D. It was a joke even then.)
Slashdot Mirror
Getting it to hold up in court is exactly the point. Yes, I am only considering U.S. law here, but the monopolies have to be broken in the U.S. or nobody else has a chance in Hell.
The way to break crap like the DMCA is to put it into direct conflict with the 1st Amendment in such a way that the weakest points of IP are put up against the strongest points of Free Speech and Free Association. If we, the consumers, are just hapless confused victims of a messed up legal system and it is conflicting authors rights which are being considered that is exactly what happens.
So, as a hapless confused consumer, how am I to tell whether I am furthering the author's fundamental right to free expression or infringing the author's statutory copyright?
Remember? I installed Slakware back in the mid 90s. I installed Debian the first time in the late 90s. Work made Windoze the only easy choice for awhile. I got completely fed up with Windoze a few months ago and went back to Debian.
Why would I remember something which is going on in some parallel universe?
I like Debian, and I'd suggest it to anyone with the required computer skills, but not to someone without those skills. There are just too many decisions to be made.
Older women have been just about the fastest growing population of computer users in recent years. Even my wife is addicted to her Weight-watchers group.
Of course, you might get a better hearing from her if you were planning on burning a spammer at the stake, but even with filesharing I think you'd get a fair hearing.
Slashdot distributes copyrighted materials constantly. This post is copyrighted.
There. I posted evidence to the contrary.
How did they knowingly break the law? How can they tell if they've broken the law or they've just participated in our fundamental right to free association?
How do I know whether I'm stealing or whether I'm assisting someone to express their free speech rights?
There is plenty of music out there where the band is more than happy for me to download it, but I can't tell the difference. It certainly isn't the responsibility of the band which wants to be heard to give notice. This would be an intollarable imposition upon their free speech rights.
If you take, for instance, Joesph Wecker's descramble, how are you to decide whether you are helping him or hurting him?
How is the filesharer, in principle, supposed to know whether they are sharing something which is released by the author in a free speech attempt to be heard or something which the author wishes to sell?
Sure, there may be specific items which the filesharer does in fact know are intended for sale, but all I have to do in order to not know is be oblivious to mass media; which I am. I wouldn't know the difference between the latest boy band and an underground revolutionary group.
Check out Freenet. The anonymous network, not any of serveral companies around the world with the same name.
Let's assume that I want to be a nice law-abiding consumer. (quit snickering) When I find a file on Kazaa Lite how do I know whether the copyright holder wants to express their free speech right to be heard or they want to assert some obscure federal statute preventing me from hearing what they have to say?
You can't expect those who wish to use their free speech rights to put up notice. That would chill their rights to free expression in an intollarable way -- especially if what they wish to express is a political condemnation of the notion of IP.
I am put into a legal quandery. Even assuming I wish to do the right thing both morally and legally I cannot do it. Not only I, but the author have a constitutional right to free speech and assocation. The author also has a statutory right to copy. But there is no way I can distingush between the author who is asserting their constitional right and the author who is asserting their statutory right.
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
"Thus far, the RIAA has been fine, the geeks boycott and everyone else goes about their merry way."
You seem to be totally unaware of the major labels' sales figures verses the sales of the Independent labels over the last year.
While the RIAA members are whining about poor sales the independents are having a banner year.
My daughter uses Kazaa to hunt down really strange stuff from individual artists, and has been doing this for years now. (Why not Kazaa Lite, I ask?) I'd guess that she has an occasional song the RIAA would have claim to, but the ratio is certainly less than 1 in 10.
Furthermore, how are you to tell if the author is asserting their free speech right to be heard or is asserting some obscure federal statute?
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
Why would I install any copy XP when I have an unused legal copy of Windoze2000?
just to have the PC Linux certified. It's a pain in the butt trying to figure out what sort of crappy hardware they've stuck in the machine and whether anyone who'd been stuck with same was mad enough to write a driver.
Of course, not paying the M$ tax would always be a good idea...
$53? A dollar for my soul? No way! It's a $52.00 value.
I'd have to agree with this. The only versions of Linux I've ever installed are Slackware and Debian (I use Debian now), but I would never suggest either of them for a beginner. With Debian it's not just the initial installation that's an issue. I have an embarassment of riches with Debian and generally have to figure out what flavor of just about anything it is that I want to install. A newbie needs an OS where you don't have to decide every little detail about what you want.
"The fact is, most support is of the getting-started variety. Do you expect those people to pay for support *before* they have their software working? Or do you help them get set up for free, after which they have little need for support?"
Generally, the software and the support is sold as a package -- so yes, people are expected to pay for support before they have their software working.
You are confusing Free expression with Free beer.
"Maybe that is where projects like OpenOffice need to have "boxed" releases that the public can SEE the choice on the shelves."
Then why don't _you_ start a business? OpenOffice is GPL, isn't it?
"...you will see some cool stuff in Outlook 2003."
No I won't.
Yes master.
"I just export it to my web server, wait a couple of weeks for google to index it, and then google it."
Oh, that is soooo tempting. The best part, it would solve the problem of people sending me gossip I don't want to know.
I don't know if this comes under social science or history of science. :)
No, but you have thrown in an extra twist. There's a difference between assuming that a coin is fair and determining by experimentation if a coin is fair. Both are concerned with the probability that the coin will turn up heads over repeated trials.
If you follow the note and the link to the prosecutor's fallacy in the Wikipedia entry you provided for likelihood you will find a discussion more in line with the problem the astronomers face in determining whether our rock will hit the Earth. Don't let time confuse you. Our rock either will or will not hit the Earth, and celestial mechanics is sufficiently well behaved that this has already been decided (barring intervention with a light sail or such). We just don't know what the result is.
BTW -- The discussion of the prosecutor's fallacy gives some of the flavor of the problems the soft sciences were having at the beginning of the 20th century. They were doing things like computing likelihoods and then treating them as probabilities -- effectively creating circular arguments.
I believe the correct term is 'likelihood', not 'pseudo-probability'. It's been a long time since I've studied this crap. It's the type of stuff which is very important when you are examining an experimental method to ensure that it is valid. The rest of the time it is just boringly technical.
Lot's of early Sociology (etc.) was screwed up because of confusion over the distinction between likelihood and probability. Clearing this stuff up led to things like double-blind testing of drugs.
Yup!
(And Yup!)
Turtle theory isn't a physical theory. It's closer to being a psychological theory. Turtle theory is about how concepts fail by dividing what cannot be properly divided. That is, by being concepts.
I'm not much of a physicist, but I believe there are a couple of competing descriptions of strings which 'look' very different but which mathematically can be reduced to each other. That is, conceptually they describe very different universes but physically they describe the same universe. (I'm not even sure it is string theory which currently has this problem.)
Hey! Turtle Theory is really a much better theory than you think. Turtle Theory says that there are no fundamental distinctions, but as soon as you pretend there is a fundamental distinction by coming up with a word -- any word at all, such as 'turtle' -- then it's turtles all the way down. It's a comment upon mistaking the map for the territory. (It is also an old Buddhist cosmology, I think from the 1st century A.D. It was a joke even then.)