Notice this question the report starts with? "Did you know the Dewey Decimal System isn't in the public domain?"
If the public thinks dewey is public then the trademark suit fails. In order to have a valid trademark it has to be recognized in trade. Essentially the same thing happened to unix, although AT&T basically just gave up rather than continuing to press the issue. (I make a point of never capitalizing unix except at the beginning of a sentence.)
My mom is long dead, but I can probably teach my daughter to use it.
I'll forget teaching my son to use it. His attitude would be along the lines of "unless you synthesized your voice using xyz envelope generator I doubt you really had anything worthwhile to say anyway."
Unfortunately, we'll probably have a land-line phone in the house until my wife dies of old age.
When you put a file onto a Web page you generally have some idea where that file came from. That is, you generally know if the file is someone's free speech or it is someone's intellectual property. When you pick up and share a file via P2P you generally have no idea where that file came from, and don't know whether it is free speech or intellectual property.
Re:This may affect you because
on
Telstar 4 is Down
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Well... It doesn't effect me, but I don't suppose you could get me some freebie access so that it would effect me?
"There is little consistency in the positions and posturings of those involved in the privacy debate. For example, we believe in freedom of expression on the Internet...except for those who promulgate hate speech (which is defined as speech I find offensive). We believe in respecting the privacy of those on the Net...except for those who I believe are abusing the Net (they're fair game for any abuse I choose to heap on them)."
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm being completely consistent. The hate speech, the kiddie porn, the terrorists, all of them have just as much right to use the net as I do, but I don't have to have anything to do with them.
I believe in completely free speech, but I also believe in freedom of association. I've got the right to find ways of avoiding people with views of which I disapprove. I don't have the right to stop them from expressing their views.
I think it would be enough to have some freely-distrbuted indy music and be able to plead that they didn't know which was freely-distributed and which belongs to the RIAA. There isn't any way to tell the difference.
Aside from the fact that someone with only indy music isn't likely to get hit by the RIAA, the case wouldn't make the real point. The freely-distributed indy music is the only music out there with any sort of fundamental rights involved. The crap out there asserting copyright protection only has some obscure federal statutory commercial protection. The freely-distributed stuff is protected by the First Amendment's acknowledgement that speech is a fundamental right.
" From what I remember reading, the RIAA did searches on certain songs that they represented the copyright for. When they found people sharing these songs, then they went to check out each individual to see how much they were sharing. They downloaded X files, checked the hash value, and logged the IP number."
So what? I'm supposed to know what crap they represent?
All I'm interested in is making sure that the people who want to be heard can reach willing listeners without interference. I could care less whether the copyright industry lives or dies.
Actually, I'd be happier if the copyright industry dies. That way, the only stuff out there would be stuff the artists actually want you to hear. As it is now, there's too much crud in the way and it's hard for their voices to be heard.
Well, in some respects I'm kind of out of the loop. The last concert I went to was Arlo Guthrie and family. Sarah Guthrie's HOT!
I'm also rather fond of Pete Seegar...
I keep meaning to install one of the P2Ps so that I can share Joesph Wecker's "descramble," but that's kind of a lot of work just to share one song. I'll stick with running a Freenet node.
"Well, if your hard drive is full of their music, then I doubt a court of law would find this to be a plausible statement. BTW, music is copyrighted by default. The omission of a proper copyright notice does not grant you the right to copy it."
First, my hard drive isn't full of their music. I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to have any time for actual downloading.
Second, Congress did a stupid thing by removing the copyright marking requirement. This put commercial copyright law into direct conflict with fundamental free speech rights. Want to place bets upon what is going to happen when this issue is finally placed squarely in front of the Supreme Court?
The whole "fair use" business is because of an earlier brush-up between copyright and free speech. The publishing industry lost that time, and the recording industry will lose this time too. There's too many precidents protecting the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners, and protecting the right to peacably assemble.
I'm under no obligation to pay attention to the latest fad. I will acknowledge knowing of The Kinks existence, although I don't know what their stance on filesharing is or who might own any copyright to their material. I have no idea who the rest are. I also have no intention of finding out who they are.
Um... On slahdot when you change your.sig it changes everywhere. If you are going to respond to someone's.sig then you really ought to quote the.sig you are talking about. Otherwise your message will become meaningless at some future date.
The.sig: "Is this message free speech, or do you have to pay me in order to read it?"
Slashdot Mirror
Because the wishes of the copyright holder are not the same as the rights of the copyright holder.
I'm going to end up with one Hell of a big home network...
Let them put DRM into Linux. That would be great!
Of course, there's a little clause in the GPL about modifying and redistributing the software...
If I get a consumer product with GPL software in it, do they have to supply the source?
The phrase "digital revolution" is taking on a whole new meaning.
And no one with an untrusted OS will buy the product.
The race between OSS and DRM is on. May the most consumer friendly solution win!
Just don't send me any of your protected documents. Just like the rest of the MS virus, Linux is immune.
I know some people put long lists of "hot words" into their .sigs. I think one of them is the guy who runs cryptome.
No, unix is a common noun.
Notice this question the report starts with? "Did you know the Dewey Decimal System isn't in the public domain?"
If the public thinks dewey is public then the trademark suit fails. In order to have a valid trademark it has to be recognized in trade. Essentially the same thing happened to unix, although AT&T basically just gave up rather than continuing to press the issue. (I make a point of never capitalizing unix except at the beginning of a sentence.)
My mom is long dead, but I can probably teach my daughter to use it.
I'll forget teaching my son to use it. His attitude would be along the lines of "unless you synthesized your voice using xyz envelope generator I doubt you really had anything worthwhile to say anyway."
Unfortunately, we'll probably have a land-line phone in the house until my wife dies of old age.
Time for encrypted P2P VoIP.
Somehow, I don't think this is a job for Freenet....
There goes my bandwidth ---- again.
Just mark me down as redundant and get it over.
My thanks as well.
You could at least mention the name of the company you just screwed.
When you put a file onto a Web page you generally have some idea where that file came from. That is, you generally know if the file is someone's free speech or it is someone's intellectual property. When you pick up and share a file via P2P you generally have no idea where that file came from, and don't know whether it is free speech or intellectual property.
Well... It doesn't effect me, but I don't suppose you could get me some freebie access so that it would effect me?
I've always been of the opinion that the right to bear arms, being a protection against the government, implied the right to own nukes.
Satuday night specials, on the other hand, won't do a damn thing against the government. I'm not so worried about them being outlawed.
"There is little consistency in the positions and posturings of those involved in the privacy debate. For example, we believe in freedom of expression on the Internet...except for those who promulgate hate speech (which is defined as speech I find offensive). We believe in respecting the privacy of those on the Net...except for those who I believe are abusing the Net (they're fair game for any abuse I choose to heap on them)."
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm being completely consistent. The hate speech, the kiddie porn, the terrorists, all of them have just as much right to use the net as I do, but I don't have to have anything to do with them.
I believe in completely free speech, but I also believe in freedom of association. I've got the right to find ways of avoiding people with views of which I disapprove. I don't have the right to stop them from expressing their views.
I think it would be enough to have some freely-distrbuted indy music and be able to plead that they didn't know which was freely-distributed and which belongs to the RIAA. There isn't any way to tell the difference.
Aside from the fact that someone with only indy music isn't likely to get hit by the RIAA, the case wouldn't make the real point. The freely-distributed indy music is the only music out there with any sort of fundamental rights involved. The crap out there asserting copyright protection only has some obscure federal statutory commercial protection. The freely-distributed stuff is protected by the First Amendment's acknowledgement that speech is a fundamental right.
" From what I remember reading, the RIAA did searches on certain songs that they represented the copyright for. When they found people sharing these songs, then they went to check out each individual to see how much they were sharing. They downloaded X files, checked the hash value, and logged the IP number."
So what? I'm supposed to know what crap they represent?
All I'm interested in is making sure that the people who want to be heard can reach willing listeners without interference. I could care less whether the copyright industry lives or dies.
Actually, I'd be happier if the copyright industry dies. That way, the only stuff out there would be stuff the artists actually want you to hear. As it is now, there's too much crud in the way and it's hard for their voices to be heard.
Well, in some respects I'm kind of out of the loop. The last concert I went to was Arlo Guthrie and family. Sarah Guthrie's HOT!
I'm also rather fond of Pete Seegar...
I keep meaning to install one of the P2Ps so that I can share Joesph Wecker's "descramble," but that's kind of a lot of work just to share one song. I'll stick with running a Freenet node.
"Well, if your hard drive is full of their music, then I doubt a court of law would find this to be a plausible statement. BTW, music is copyrighted by default. The omission of a proper copyright notice does not grant you the right to copy it."
First, my hard drive isn't full of their music. I'm too busy protecting my free speech rights to have any time for actual downloading.
Second, Congress did a stupid thing by removing the copyright marking requirement. This put commercial copyright law into direct conflict with fundamental free speech rights. Want to place bets upon what is going to happen when this issue is finally placed squarely in front of the Supreme Court?
The whole "fair use" business is because of an earlier brush-up between copyright and free speech. The publishing industry lost that time, and the recording industry will lose this time too. There's too many precidents protecting the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners, and protecting the right to peacably assemble.
I'm under no obligation to pay attention to the latest fad. I will acknowledge knowing of The Kinks existence, although I don't know what their stance on filesharing is or who might own any copyright to their material. I have no idea who the rest are. I also have no intention of finding out who they are.
" I already read it and will not pay you!"
.sig it changes everywhere. If you are going to respond to someone's .sig then you really ought to quote the .sig you are talking about. Otherwise your message will become meaningless at some future date.
.sig: "Is this message free speech, or do you have to pay me in order to read it?"
Um... On slahdot when you change your
The