It is prefectly legal to copy music which is released as an act of free speech, and any attempt by congress to infringe upon this right is constitutionally infirm. Since it is a basic right to propagate free speech, and copyright is merely a commercial issue, it seems to me that we must have the right to copy files as long as we do not know for a fact that the author intended to assert copyright protection.
The problem with the RIAA's dragnet is that there is no way for the filesharer to tell which files are free speech and which files are copyright infringement. We cannot allow an evil copyright monopoly to shut down an open marketplace where the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners is available to all simply because their poorly marked copyrighted materials may happen to be part of the mix.
All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.
For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.
To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.
If the file is marked as copyrighted then delete it. Only share files when you cannot tell whether the material is released as free speech or released for profit.
Of course, since almost no files are marked as copyrighted that leaves just about every file out there to choose from.
Let Windoze die a slow, agonizing, discraceful death.
Feature turn-around for Linux development is about 100x for Windoze. Let MS fiddle. That way, when we claim 50%+ of the desktops Bill's FUD will be little more than a bad joke.
"Hackers in China... hey, it looks like China is the new Russia!"
The New Russia is basically bandrupt, unlike China.
Assuming you meant the new USSR, I don't think so. Remember the "one child" policy? Well, all those little princes are growning up. China might be a threat to the U.S. both economically and militarily -- but it is a different sort of threat. I'd tend to discount the military; which they are talking about reducing, and be more worried about "to be rich is glorious."
On the other hand, moving to China and getting a job might not be too bad. Stocking shelves just isn't as much fun as writing code. Just how hard is Mandarin anyway? I'm sort of Buddhist, although I'm not so sure about Confusious. I ought to fit in, more or less.
What scares me is the way Bradbury got it right in Farenheit 451, not Orwell with 1984. When I read Farenheit 451 as a kid I thought it was an interesting but rather unbelievable story.
You make too many assumptions, all of them wrong. I know for a fact that people put together good music and release it onto the P2P networks.
Furthermore, I'm not going to conceed the P2P networks to the copyright folks. P2P is a free and open marketplace. Free speech has every right to be there.
Also, just because the band is willing to share it on the P2P networks doesn't make it public domain. It can be copyrighted, and therefore not legally available for sale, and still be given away.
"I mean, "Woman impregnated by mysterious visitor learns that her unborn child will be the savior of all mankind" covers lots of different things, from the Bible to "The Terminator"."
More a case of The Terminator. The Bible is more a case of schoolyard bully won't let other kids play.
"Also, in regular (non-media) business, the value content producers (tech writers, programmers) bring into the company is not tangible. A techwriter or programmer isn't going to directly generate $100 million in sales (although they may help influence that).
However, the value content producers (singers, writers, producers) bring into the media business is very tangible. Hence this big fiasco. A content producer can bring in $100 million in sales because he is what is sold. His product (songs) is the proprety that generates value for the RIAA. That's why they want to defend their intellectual property so bad."
You've got the basic idea, however without the techwriters and programmers there is no product. The RIAA has the problem in a bad way. The rest of business has the problem in a up-and-coming way.
Corporations cannot write anything. It is people who write things. Perhaps what people write should be inalienable.
If I'm ever taken into court my defense is going to be that I can't tell what is out there as an expression of free speech and what is out there because someone ripped off someone else's copyright protected material.
Ignorance of the law might not be a defense, but ignorance of the facts is.
(Besides, I'd rather there was only stuff out there expressing people's free speech opinions. Let the copyright crap die in obscurity.)
Slashdot Mirror
It is prefectly legal to copy music which is released as an act of free speech, and any attempt by congress to infringe upon this right is constitutionally infirm. Since it is a basic right to propagate free speech, and copyright is merely a commercial issue, it seems to me that we must have the right to copy files as long as we do not know for a fact that the author intended to assert copyright protection.
The problem with the RIAA's dragnet is that there is no way for the filesharer to tell which files are free speech and which files are copyright infringement. We cannot allow an evil copyright monopoly to shut down an open marketplace where the right to speak and be heard by willing listeners is available to all simply because their poorly marked copyrighted materials may happen to be part of the mix.
It is clearly part of the RIAA's agenda to close off any other avenue to becoming known so that their slaves (the artists) cannot escape.
The RIAA seems willing to catch and fine people who can't tell whether they are illegally trading files or propagating free speech.
Copyright Notice
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
All rights reserved.
All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.
For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.
To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.
If the file is marked as copyrighted then delete it. Only share files when you cannot tell whether the material is released as free speech or released for profit.
Of course, since almost no files are marked as copyrighted that leaves just about every file out there to choose from.
" nahh... there are 0b10 types of people in the world..."
What radix is your base in?
(All your bases are........)
Screw the world. Only computer nerds count.
(There are 10 types of people, but I haven't decided which radix to use yet. (Hey! Be thankfull I didn't go with "there are 0 types of people..."))
Luckily, China has a long history of being an ingrown toenail.
Sure, the west was stupid enough to meddle. But if the west has sense enough to leave China alone it will soon go back to incomprehensible infighting.
Booting for the fun of it seems a lot like kiddie porn to me...
What? You don't have a battery?
Geeze. How the Hell do you set the clocks in your house? Call time?
Gee. Why does my TV use power when it's turned off then?
Let Windoze die a slow, agonizing, discraceful death.
Feature turn-around for Linux development is about 100x for Windoze. Let MS fiddle. That way, when we claim 50%+ of the desktops Bill's FUD will be little more than a bad joke.
When will you be releasing? Where can I download?
Um... Back in the 1970s crackers were finding interesting problems with X.25...
Ok, I admit the nets back then weren't quite a well known by the general public...
"...criminally unprepared..."
Do you mean as in somone who runs any Microsoft software?
"Hackers in China... hey, it looks like China is the new Russia!"
The New Russia is basically bandrupt, unlike China.
Assuming you meant the new USSR, I don't think so. Remember the "one child" policy? Well, all those little princes are growning up. China might be a threat to the U.S. both economically and militarily -- but it is a different sort of threat. I'd tend to discount the military; which they are talking about reducing, and be more worried about "to be rich is glorious."
On the other hand, moving to China and getting a job might not be too bad. Stocking shelves just isn't as much fun as writing code. Just how hard is Mandarin anyway? I'm sort of Buddhist, although I'm not so sure about Confusious. I ought to fit in, more or less.
What scares me is the way Bradbury got it right in Farenheit 451, not Orwell with 1984. When I read Farenheit 451 as a kid I thought it was an interesting but rather unbelievable story.
Have you picked your book to become yet?
"...but would a fixed household-based tax on broadband be dumb?"
.gif and all the other stuff advertisers like to do?
Just what we always needed, another regressive tax.
If you want to tax anything on the Internet, how about taxing the number of frames in a moving
You make too many assumptions, all of them wrong. I know for a fact that people put together good music and release it onto the P2P networks.
Furthermore, I'm not going to conceed the P2P networks to the copyright folks. P2P is a free and open marketplace. Free speech has every right to be there.
Also, just because the band is willing to share it on the P2P networks doesn't make it public domain. It can be copyrighted, and therefore not legally available for sale, and still be given away.
Who gives a damn if the probability is 1:100,000,000 -- the more scares the more likely stupid bumpkins will fund space travel.
What we really need is a good 1:1 for people to think about. That will get us into space in a hurry.
"I mean, "Woman impregnated by mysterious visitor learns that her unborn child will be the savior of all mankind" covers lots of different things, from the Bible to "The Terminator"."
More a case of The Terminator. The Bible is more a case of schoolyard bully won't let other kids play.
Linux is doing pretty well.
In fact, the people who've spent all their time writing for Linux seem to be doing rather well themselves.
"Also, in regular (non-media) business, the value content producers (tech writers, programmers) bring into the company is not tangible. A techwriter or programmer isn't going to directly generate $100 million in sales (although they may help influence that).
However, the value content producers (singers, writers, producers) bring into the media business is very tangible. Hence this big fiasco. A content producer can bring in $100 million in sales because he is what is sold. His product (songs) is the proprety that generates value for the RIAA. That's why they want to defend their intellectual property so bad."
You've got the basic idea, however without the techwriters and programmers there is no product. The RIAA has the problem in a bad way. The rest of business has the problem in a up-and-coming way.
Corporations cannot write anything. It is people who write things. Perhaps what people write should be inalienable.
What's Windows? ;)
If I'm ever taken into court my defense is going to be that I can't tell what is out there as an expression of free speech and what is out there because someone ripped off someone else's copyright protected material.
Ignorance of the law might not be a defense, but ignorance of the facts is.
(Besides, I'd rather there was only stuff out there expressing people's free speech opinions. Let the copyright crap die in obscurity.)
Band-of-the-week who?