How free is the speech when there are restrictions placed upon how, when, and where I can use that speech? The GPL is more facist than free as it restricts the way I may use that speech (i.e. code).
I'm not arguing that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do object to calling something free when it really isn't.
Seriously, why go digital at all if you don't want to do video editing on your 'puter? You can get much more for your money with analog: cheaper media, better zoom range, far superior low-light capabilities. I can't think of a single reason to go digital if you don't want to edit film.
It was largely a joke, but personally I feel that humans are inherently more error-prone than computers are. Heck, computers are error-prone only because humans are.
There are simply more efficient methods of tabulating results than having 100 people sit down and count stacks of ballots one at a time. For instance, here in Arizona, we use the "connect the lines with a black marker" method of voting. It's simple and easy for the voter to see how they voted after the fact. The voter then inserts the ballot into a machine that reads or rejects the ballot immediately. This integrates the best of both worlds. It automates the counting process while maintaining an easy-to-read paper ballot that can be counted by hand if necessary.
I remember seeing all those poor sods hand-counting punch cards in Florida three years ago wondering to myself what the error rate was using that method. I do agree with many here that touch-screen voting without a paper trail is a horrible idea rife with opportunity for mischief.
I'm sorry, this is not insightful. Punch cards are inherently bad. Although there have been many jokes about dimpled or hanging chads, these are real problems. If the punch tray on is not emptied often enough, the voter may think he has punched a selection when he really hasn't punched through resulting in a dimpled chad. If the punch does not pop out all the way, the electronic reader may close that hanging chad and not count the vote.
Now pull that punch card out of the voting tray and tell me exactly whom you voted for. You can't, it's a punch card! I can't believe these things were (or are) still being used just three years ago.
What a joke. Science is replete with examples of people using their brain only to find out their brain is not particularly good at discerning the truth. For example,
Everyone knew that if you drop a 10 ton weight and a 1 pound weight that the heavier one falls faster. Whoops! Turns out they fall at exactly the same speed.
Everyone knew that flies came from rotten meat. I mean, you could see them coming from the meat with your own eyes. Whoops! Turns out the flies come from eggs laid by other flies.
Everyone knew that light needed a medium to travel through space. I mean, light is just like sound in that it is a wave. So there must be this thing called the ether which we can't see or detect. I mean it just seems right. Whoops! Turns out light is much different than we thought.
All of these examples may seem elementary to you, but they were all firmly held beliefs at one time or another because they made sense to people. Only through testable, verifiable, repeatable experiments were these beliefs all proven to be utterly false. Global warming has not been subjected to any such thing. It's pure politics, not science.
Germany went from the most crippled economy of the 20th century to the dominant military power in the world in 15 years. What makes you so certain it couldn't happen again? Only now these countries have weapons at their disposal that can kill as many Americans in minutes as died in all of WWII.
It's far better for the U.S. and the world for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe. History is replete with examples of how the Europeans cannot coexist peacefully for long.
If DRM is such a miserable idea that will be so easily circumvented, why does the/. community spend so much time venting about it? Don't tell me that it's because you all care so much about the common man. This is the same group that loves to ridicule people for using Windows or calls the general public sheep because they don't keep abreast of the latest Internet Free Speech cause.
Could it be that most here realize that they won't be able to easily pilfer the latest copyrighted works quite so easily anymore, or that information won't want to be quite so free anymore?
If DRM is such a bad idea, let it fail in the marketplace. Ths odds are though, that DRM - paricularly at the hardware level - will be at least somewhat successful at preventing the theft of copyrighted works in the future. Sure, the general public may have sime minor inconveniences during the initial phase-in period. These will be addressed and solved eventually, however, or DRM will go away.
Not true. Locks cause criminals to look elsewhere for easier targets. Any lock can be picked, given sufficient time and resources.
For example, look at The Club which is used to protect parked cars. Anyone can take a hacksaw and cut through the thing, but it's simply easier and less risky to look for a car that doesn't have it.
Sure there are always the experts that like the challenge of doing the impossible. Those are not the people DRM is designed for.
Please. Nobody, and I mean nobody, that downloads music off Kazaa or Napster gives a rat's ass about the artists getting paid. They're in it to get free music, period. Besides, I thought that real artists make music because they love to and they make their money off live performances, not recordings. It's always something with this crowd.
At least with BMG, you're legal and you get the physical media. With iTunes you get DRM'd, low bitrate music with no media. Sounds like a bad deal to me.
BMG is now selling CDs for $6.99 apiece with free shipping. All of you that have been saying that you'll stop pirating music when it's reasonably priced, here's your chance to live up to those words.
Of course, now I expect the answer will be that $6.99 is still a rip off for a piece of plastic that costs pennies to manufacture.
No one here is talking about making a copy of a CD he owns. We're talking about mass trading of music that no one has paid for. No one is going to throw you in jail for singing "Happy Birthday". Be reasonable! And why should you be able to make copies for family and friends? It's not your music, is it?
I'll disregard your assertion that no artist would not create music if copyright expired in 20 years because you are not in a position to ask every artist on earth that question.
Whether or not that person would buy the music or not is irrelevant. Why should you have access to something that costs money when you aren't willing to pay for it? Simple. You shouldn't. This "it's not stealing 'cuz I wasn't going to buy it" argument is just rationalizing theft.
> And if you don't think artists should get > copyright protection for years, well, then you > certainly shouldn't be behind the record companies > getting it instead.
Pardon me, but didn't the artist sign their rights to the music away when they signed that contract?
Your post amounts to nothing more than class warfare. Who are you to decide when artists should no longer be paid for their work? If people decide that a 20 year old album is worth paying for, why shouldn't the artist be compensated for it?
> You still need income? Here's a thought, write > some new stuff.
The original post made the assertion. The burden of proof belongs to him. This supposed "fact" is stated everytime someone wants to try and justify music piracy. It's about time for these people to put their cards on the table and defend this position. Simply trotting out an artist or two that holds the same view does not prove anything. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but not sufficient when you're talking about an entire industry.
No, I think copyright should definately have a limited lifespan as was originally intended. My point was not is disagreement with yours. It was more an addendum.
Just because the concept of copyright did not exist in the ancient/medieval world does not automatically make it evil. Most of those you listed had esteemed positions of power as a result of their literary skills that are not available to the writers of today.
The fact is that people will pay for creations that they perceive to be valuable. Why do some wish to deny people that have a talent in a given area the right to profit from that talent? Simply because a creative work is not a tangible object like a toaster doesn't mean it has zero value.
Slashdot Mirror
How free is the speech when there are restrictions placed upon how, when, and where I can use that speech? The GPL is more facist than free as it restricts the way I may use that speech (i.e. code).
I'm not arguing that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do object to calling something free when it really isn't.
That sounds just like Dubya.
Seriously, why go digital at all if you don't want to do video editing on your 'puter? You can get much more for your money with analog: cheaper media, better zoom range, far superior low-light capabilities. I can't think of a single reason to go digital if you don't want to edit film.
I knew there was something that bugged me about these movies. Now I know!
"76. Bilbo rides to the Grey Havens on a pony (ROTK p.381). Jackson has Bilbo ride to the Grey Havens in a covered wagon."
Thanks Nit-Picker!!!
It was largely a joke, but personally I feel that humans are inherently more error-prone than computers are. Heck, computers are error-prone only because humans are.
There are simply more efficient methods of tabulating results than having 100 people sit down and count stacks of ballots one at a time. For instance, here in Arizona, we use the "connect the lines with a black marker" method of voting. It's simple and easy for the voter to see how they voted after the fact. The voter then inserts the ballot into a machine that reads or rejects the ballot immediately. This integrates the best of both worlds. It automates the counting process while maintaining an easy-to-read paper ballot that can be counted by hand if necessary.
I remember seeing all those poor sods hand-counting punch cards in Florida three years ago wondering to myself what the error rate was using that method. I do agree with many here that touch-screen voting without a paper trail is a horrible idea rife with opportunity for mischief.
I'm sorry, this is not insightful. Punch cards are inherently bad. Although there have been many jokes about dimpled or hanging chads, these are real problems. If the punch tray on is not emptied often enough, the voter may think he has punched a selection when he really hasn't punched through resulting in a dimpled chad. If the punch does not pop out all the way, the electronic reader may close that hanging chad and not count the vote.
Now pull that punch card out of the voting tray and tell me exactly whom you voted for. You can't, it's a punch card! I can't believe these things were (or are) still being used just three years ago.
And I suppose you want to count those votes by hand, too? I can just see it...
... 102,605 ... 102,6. Uh? Crap!!! ... 2 ... 3 ..."
"102,604
1
What a joke. Science is replete with examples of people using their brain only to find out their brain is not particularly good at discerning the truth. For example,
Everyone knew that if you drop a 10 ton weight and a 1 pound weight that the heavier one falls faster. Whoops! Turns out they fall at exactly the same speed.
Everyone knew that flies came from rotten meat. I mean, you could see them coming from the meat with your own eyes. Whoops! Turns out the flies come from eggs laid by other flies.
Everyone knew that light needed a medium to travel through space. I mean, light is just like sound in that it is a wave. So there must be this thing called the ether which we can't see or detect. I mean it just seems right. Whoops! Turns out light is much different than we thought.
All of these examples may seem elementary to you, but they were all firmly held beliefs at one time or another because they made sense to people. Only through testable, verifiable, repeatable experiments were these beliefs all proven to be utterly false. Global warming has not been subjected to any such thing. It's pure politics, not science.
> A shirtless Anakin, a pregnant Padme, and a
> curious C-3PO have a scene together
Dude, that's just sick!!!
Germany went from the most crippled economy of the 20th century to the dominant military power in the world in 15 years. What makes you so certain it couldn't happen again? Only now these countries have weapons at their disposal that can kill as many Americans in minutes as died in all of WWII.
It's far better for the U.S. and the world for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe. History is replete with examples of how the Europeans cannot coexist peacefully for long.
If DRM is such a miserable idea that will be so easily circumvented, why does the /. community spend so much time venting about it? Don't tell me that it's because you all care so much about the common man. This is the same group that loves to ridicule people for using Windows or calls the general public sheep because they don't keep abreast of the latest Internet Free Speech cause.
Could it be that most here realize that they won't be able to easily pilfer the latest copyrighted works quite so easily anymore, or that information won't want to be quite so free anymore?
If DRM is such a bad idea, let it fail in the marketplace. Ths odds are though, that DRM - paricularly at the hardware level - will be at least somewhat successful at preventing the theft of copyrighted works in the future. Sure, the general public may have sime minor inconveniences during the initial phase-in period. These will be addressed and solved eventually, however, or DRM will go away.
Not true. Locks cause criminals to look elsewhere for easier targets. Any lock can be picked, given sufficient time and resources.
For example, look at The Club which is used to protect parked cars. Anyone can take a hacksaw and cut through the thing, but it's simply easier and less risky to look for a car that doesn't have it.
Sure there are always the experts that like the challenge of doing the impossible. Those are not the people DRM is designed for.
I see someone consulted their Merrian-Webster dictionary. Unfortunately, you missed the alternate definition:
an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Property. You know, as in intellectual property?
Stop trying to justify theft.
Please. Nobody, and I mean nobody, that downloads music off Kazaa or Napster gives a rat's ass about the artists getting paid. They're in it to get free music, period. Besides, I thought that real artists make music because they love to and they make their money off live performances, not recordings. It's always something with this crowd.
At least with BMG, you're legal and you get the physical media. With iTunes you get DRM'd, low bitrate music with no media. Sounds like a bad deal to me.
BMG is now selling CDs for $6.99 apiece with free shipping. All of you that have been saying that you'll stop pirating music when it's reasonably priced, here's your chance to live up to those words.
Of course, now I expect the answer will be that $6.99 is still a rip off for a piece of plastic that costs pennies to manufacture.
No one here is talking about making a copy of a CD he owns. We're talking about mass trading of music that no one has paid for. No one is going to throw you in jail for singing "Happy Birthday". Be reasonable! And why should you be able to make copies for family and friends? It's not your music, is it?
I'll disregard your assertion that no artist would not create music if copyright expired in 20 years because you are not in a position to ask every artist on earth that question.
My point was that the artist made the decision to sign that contract. If they want to give away their rights, so be it.
Whether or not that person would buy the music or not is irrelevant. Why should you have access to something that costs money when you aren't willing to pay for it? Simple. You shouldn't. This "it's not stealing 'cuz I wasn't going to buy it" argument is just rationalizing theft.
> And if you don't think artists should get
> copyright protection for years, well, then you
> certainly shouldn't be behind the record companies
> getting it instead.
Pardon me, but didn't the artist sign their rights to the music away when they signed that contract?
Your post amounts to nothing more than class warfare. Who are you to decide when artists should no longer be paid for their work? If people decide that a 20 year old album is worth paying for, why shouldn't the artist be compensated for it?
> You still need income? Here's a thought, write
> some new stuff.
Why? So that can get traded on KaZaa too?
The original post made the assertion. The burden of proof belongs to him. This supposed "fact" is stated everytime someone wants to try and justify music piracy. It's about time for these people to put their cards on the table and defend this position. Simply trotting out an artist or two that holds the same view does not prove anything. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but not sufficient when you're talking about an entire industry.
Nobody is going to look down on you, but good luck finding something to play your ogg files in, and better luck in getting other people to use ogg.
No, I think copyright should definately have a limited lifespan as was originally intended. My point was not is disagreement with yours. It was more an addendum.
Just because the concept of copyright did not exist in the ancient/medieval world does not automatically make it evil. Most of those you listed had esteemed positions of power as a result of their literary skills that are not available to the writers of today.
The fact is that people will pay for creations that they perceive to be valuable. Why do some wish to deny people that have a talent in a given area the right to profit from that talent? Simply because a creative work is not a tangible object like a toaster doesn't mean it has zero value.
How many court composers are there in the world today?
Mozart attained many privileges from his music that are unavailable to musicians of today.