Freenet has been translated into Chinese -- by Chinese. I don't know what it's being used for in China, but then, for the most part I don't know what it's being used for here.
I've been watching Iran long enough to know that the parent is correct. the 65%+ of the population who are under 30 have no use for their government at all. The joke at the beginning of the Iraq war was "Good, we're next."
Accidentally hit reset on a few well chosen machines all at the same time -- say maybe midnight GMT tonight.
I bet the shock to the Internet would be nothing compared to the political earthquake of headlines reading "Slashdot readers bring down Internet in protest over software patents."
The overreaching of the IP monopolists is already creating quite a bit of backlash. EU software patents might just be the straw which breaks the camel's back -- and sends their whole stupid house of cards crashing. (Taking the RIAA, MPAA, etc. down with it.)
In any event, protest all this IP bullshit, not just patents.
...proper business proceedures isn't so simple. Some OpenSource people need to pay attention to "proceedure," but some some FreeSoftware people would probably be better off giving that notion the shaft.
Climbing a little bit into bed with business is probably good for Linux, but I think one foot should stay firmly on the ground.
On the author's consent? How am I to determine that? Free speech is a right. Copyright is purely a federal statutory creature. When I don't know, am I to assume that someone is exercising their rights or am I to assume that they are asserting some obscure statute?
(The only way I'd be listening to his music was if someone was blaring it in my ear.)
Going back to my original question. How do I determine if I'm listening to someone's intellectual property or their free speech? I don't see how you've answered the question at all.
I'm asking the question in general, although webcasting presents an interesting variation on my problem. If someone puts out a piece of music (or whatever) how am I supposed to tell if they are expecting some sort of recompense, or if they are doing it in order to speak to me without regard to compensation?
Let's say that I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3. How am I to know whether the person who recorded descramble wanted to retain copyright control or wanted to reach me with a political message? (The descramble.mp3 I am talking about is by Joesph Wecker, and it is him singing DeCSS.) The same question fits in the case of webcasters. Ought a webcaster be expected to pay the RIAA if it plays descramble? How is this to be determined? What if Joesph simply refuses to discuss the matter and won't tell us whether he wants to protect his copyright or wants to express his political opinion?
If a band creates a work and specifically says that small non-profit webcasters have a royalty-free license then wouldn't it be a violation of their speech rights to collect a royalty?
(Also, the same question, but the band specifically releases their work into the public domain.)
Alright, but if I'm a small webcaster trying to promote free speech the entire burden is upon me and the people who want to be freely heard -- not upon those who want un-free speech. Since free speech generally doesn't have any money, Free speech is being priced out of the market in favor of people who can pay to do the copyright searches.
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but not quite correct. It is the U.S. corporations who wish to quash the rights of U.S. citizens. The government is just their mercenaries.
Freenet also has the advantage of being free from U.S. censorship.
Because we are special. Americans have used up all our freedom.
Freenet has been translated into Chinese -- by Chinese. I don't know what it's being used for in China, but then, for the most part I don't know what it's being used for here.
I've been watching Iran long enough to know that the parent is correct. the 65%+ of the population who are under 30 have no use for their government at all. The joke at the beginning of the Iraq war was "Good, we're next."
Now.
Aren't you running a Freenet node yet?
ok...I give up on trying to get humor points.
Does that mean DeCSS is legal now?
"That means 50% of the households don't want junk phone calls. I'd say that's a pretty big "get stuffed" to the telemarketing industry."
That means 50% of the households don't want junk phone calls so badly they rushed to sign up the instant they heard about it.
You get 50% doing anything in the U.S. and that means there's 49% that just didn't get around to it.
Done that.
Just tie it into how the kids feel about the RIAA and you'll get plenty of supporters.
Accidentally hit reset on a few well chosen machines all at the same time -- say maybe midnight GMT tonight.
I bet the shock to the Internet would be nothing compared to the political earthquake of headlines reading "Slashdot readers bring down Internet in protest over software patents."
The overreaching of the IP monopolists is already creating quite a bit of backlash. EU software patents might just be the straw which breaks the camel's back -- and sends their whole stupid house of cards crashing. (Taking the RIAA, MPAA, etc. down with it.)
In any event, protest all this IP bullshit, not just patents.
Gee, it used to be that lawyers were the majority party.
It's getting harder and harder to get through to the petition.
(Who, me? I just want to watch the number of petitioners get bigger.)
The IP assault (insult) to our rights is coming at us from every direction lately -- Software Patents, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, SCO....
It's time to protest the whole stupid mess. Let's fight back against them all. This will get everyone who is being assulted involved at once.
...proper business proceedures isn't so simple. Some OpenSource people need to pay attention to "proceedure," but some some FreeSoftware people would probably be better off giving that notion the shaft.
Climbing a little bit into bed with business is probably good for Linux, but I think one foot should stay firmly on the ground.
On the author's consent? How am I to determine that? Free speech is a right. Copyright is purely a federal statutory creature. When I don't know, am I to assume that someone is exercising their rights or am I to assume that they are asserting some obscure statute?
(The only way I'd be listening to his music was if someone was blaring it in my ear.)
Going back to my original question. How do I determine if I'm listening to someone's intellectual property or their free speech? I don't see how you've answered the question at all.
I'm asking the question in general, although webcasting presents an interesting variation on my problem. If someone puts out a piece of music (or whatever) how am I supposed to tell if they are expecting some sort of recompense, or if they are doing it in order to speak to me without regard to compensation?
Let's say that I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3. How am I to know whether the person who recorded descramble wanted to retain copyright control or wanted to reach me with a political message? (The descramble.mp3 I am talking about is by Joesph Wecker, and it is him singing DeCSS.) The same question fits in the case of webcasters. Ought a webcaster be expected to pay the RIAA if it plays descramble? How is this to be determined? What if Joesph simply refuses to discuss the matter and won't tell us whether he wants to protect his copyright or wants to express his political opinion?
Thank you very much. There's a lot more going on than just the RIAA's stinking dealings, but you've explained the RIAA stench quite well.
In general, the people in power are using their newly invented IP as a method of smothering Freedom and keeping the rest of us down.
If a band creates a work and specifically says that small non-profit webcasters have a royalty-free license then wouldn't it be a violation of their speech rights to collect a royalty?
(Also, the same question, but the band specifically releases their work into the public domain.)
"...Its "free" speech if its not written down beforehand, i.e its not IP if its extemporaneous..."
Hmmm... I don't think so. If you were correct then the Anarchist's Cookbook wouldn't be free speech.
I suppose they'd still collect royalites even from webcasters who played nothing but music slamming the RIAA.
They already have -- it's now criminal to think.
"...broadcaster's/webcaster's responsibility..."
Alright, but if I'm a small webcaster trying to promote free speech the entire burden is upon me and the people who want to be freely heard -- not upon those who want un-free speech. Since free speech generally doesn't have any money, Free speech is being priced out of the market in favor of people who can pay to do the copyright searches.