Yes, they do. Copying it by playing it on a super-high fidelity system and then miking the speakers is legal. It is only when you circumvent the *technological* measures intended to provide access and/or copy control that you have violated the DMCA.
It seems to me that if their customers had oogles of free time -and- the requisite skills the company might lose money when everyone decides to just buil their own after downloading the source code from the website.
Uh, yeah. Knowing this prevents conscientious software companies from developing products based on GPL'd software if they have no other source of revenue. Complaining after the fact that your business plan is based on being able to close the source to GPL'd software would be like complaining that you shouldn't be put in jail for robbing the bank because you need the money, and should inspire the same degree of sympathy.
That last 10% is pretty important if it means the difference between life and death for you, as might be the case if the government decides to let your health insurance company deny you coverage for a rare disease because it's not in their economic best interest to pay for an expensive course of treatment. I for one hope that, should this happen to you, you benefit from a government that puts your interests ahead of those of the healthcare insurance industry and forces them to treat you, even at harm to their economic interests.
Maybe you would be glad to die to serve the economic interests of the healthcare insurance industry, but I would mourn the loss of so dedicated a sparring partner. Now don't give me a load of BS about denial of coverage not really serving industrial interests because of lost worker-hours, blah blah blah, because I'm talking about a *rare* disease.
If it weren't for that war , your stupid ass would end up paying $5 per gallon.
Of course, then you would bitch about these "greedy" republicans and their oil industry even more.
It seems to me that you started the "personal shots" aspect of this thread yourself. I may be an ass, but you're the one who's stupid. I guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it in.
To what will you be changing the subject now that you have been outsmarted again?
What is wrong with government supporting growth of the industry?
Isn't that what is all about ?
Looks to me like you said that supporting the growth of INDUSTRY is what government is all about. Silly me, I see supporting the growth of SOCIETY as what government is all about. You may be right, some (if not most) of the time, the two are the same; my point is that when society's interests and industry's interests do not coincide, it is the duty of government to side with society against industry.
I think your fault was engaging in a discussion with someone who understands the implications of your statements better than you do.
I never said otherwise. Does your admission that regulations can be useful mean you have accepted the statement, "SOCIETY <> INDUSTRY"? That was how this argument got started; you equated the interests of industry with those of society; I had (and still have) a problem with that.
If we have established that sometimes industry's interests are at odds with society's interests, I have made my point.
The problem I have with your "lumber industry" post is this: I said that the interests of industry are not always congruent with the interests of society at large, and the best you could do was come up with an example of when they are congruent. It's as if I had said, "Not all dogs are terriers," and you had replied, "Oh yes they are, see, I have a terrier right here, and it's a dog."
I guess I missed the part where the lumber industry was put in charge of environmental policy for all other industries. I must bow to your greater debating skill, now that this fact has come to light.
Industry may be an important PART of society, but the interests of industry are not necessarily congruent with the interests of society. Imagine a situation where industry were allowed to pollute unchecked. That might be good for industry, but would not be good for society. Or imagine a country with a thriving industrial export sector, that enslaves the 99% of its own people that are not in the business-owning class. Again, good for industry, not good for society. So, I think you can see that what is good for industry is not *always* good for society.
On the other point, I guess you have made up your mind about the subsidies given by the US government to the oil industry; you believe that they are good and right. Why, then, did you deny their existence just a few posts ago? Was it perhaps because your belief in their goodness and rightness is not very strong?
No, government is supposed to support growth of society. Despite whatever corporatist BS you've swallowed, SOCIETY INDUSTRY.
I assume from the lack of comment about the mechanisms by which the US government subsidizes the oil industry that you agree that the subsidies do exist, which you just denied. Which is it? Do the subsidies (which are good and right) exist; or do the subsidies (which would be bad and wrong, if they existed) not exist? You seem unable to make up your mind on this point.
On another note, why can't the government subsidize alternative energies, too? Or is it only industries with a history of large contributions to the republocratic party that are worthy of governmental support?
Government sponsorship of oil research, the intellectual property produced by which is then owned by the oil companies.
etc., etc.
Recent studies have suggested that the Standard of living is higher in Europe. If the Cost of living is also higher, that would make perfect sense; get more, pay more.
Let's not forget who started the most recent round of "I'm going to invade because I've got a historical claim to your land" BS. It was our "best ally in the region", Israel, staking a claim that was nearly two thousand years old.
Besides, they don't make a very good ally; all their neighbors hate them and us by extension. That's one of the reasons we will always need the Saudis; we can't use Israel as a base of military operations because doing so would kick off a Jihad the likes of which has never been seen.
Once again, I'm not saying we should have let Saddam alone; I'm saying our entering the war when and how we did belies our commitment to defending democracy and exposes the corporate interests that control our foreign and military policies.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have fought the Gulf War; I'm saying if we want to be able to call ourselves "Defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and not "Defenders of Multi-National Corporate Interests", we should have fought it sooner.
And for what it's worth, I for one would be glad if gasoline cost $5 a gallon in the US, which is what it would cost without the massive government subsidies currently being used to depress pump prices. Maybe then alternative energy and mass transit wouldn't look like such a bad idea. As it is, these subsidies wind up costing us more still in lost person-hours worked due to time spent in traffic and never-ending highway construction/repair costs. And don't give me the line about selling cars being good for Detroit; that *might* have been true 25 years ago, but these days more and more of that money goes to Japan and Germany.
When the corporations get their own militaries and have wars, I'll be scared.
Would that be anything like the military the western oil industry mustered to put the smack-down on Saddam? I'm not saying he was a nice guy, but we supported him and looked the other way while he gassed his own people. It wasn't until he threatened to disrupt the oil economy that we got concerned. You are authorized to be scared starting now.
"electional"? Is that from the George W. Bush dictionary? Why is it that the hundreds of thousands of words that are already in the English language are never enough for GWB and his supporters?
Yes, US copyright law does care, in the Digital Millenium. If you circumvented technological access- or copy- control mechanisms to make the copy, you have broken the law, and this is the scary part, *even if you were making a copy that would otherwise have been legal*.
Re:Been running it for a week now, great release.
on
KDE 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You are absolutely right. Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "They that will trade a little standards compliance for speed of compilation will get neither standards compliance nor speed of compilation." No wait, that was John Adams, no it was James Madison... no, hold on, that wasn't it at all... oh, well, you get the point, I think.
Re:KHTML & IE compatibility. Bah!
on
KDE 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're absolutely right. And if, by adhering to a standard not adhered to by the browser used by the rest of the world, 90% of pages look like shit in Linux, well, fsck 'em, we didn't want to look at those pages. And if nobody uses Linux because 90% of all web pages look like sh*t, well, fsck them too, we don't want those kind of people using Linux. I'm sure that everyone will feel so bad that the colicky Linux users aren't participating that the world will change.
Seriously though, your hardline standards-compliance stance is an idea whose time has either passed or whose time is not yet come. Some facts:
The defacto standard *is* IE. If you don't believe this, you are in denial.
The vast majority of web authors are not interested in finding a "long term solution". Not only is finding long term solutions difficult, but doing so harms the web author's job security and besides, most clients expect a complete re-work of their site every once in a while, to keep it fresh.
As a result of the above, most of the web is optimized for IE.
Approximately 0% of average users give a good goddamn whether the web page they are viewing is standards compliant.
Approximately 100% of average users don't care if the browser uses black magic to render the pages as long as the pages be readable.
If Linux wants to attract users, Linux will need a browser that can render the millions of pages already written for IE somewhere near as well as IE can render them. On the other hand, if Linux is hoping to go down in history as a highly standards-compliant system that was too good for this world, then your way is the right choice.
Right...and the same holds for copyrights, right? Oh wait, I forgot, nothing published since 1935 will ever enter the public domain, because Disney just keeps getting their copyright to Mickey Mouse extended. What's to stop large patent holders from buying laws to get their patents extended indefinitely? Make no mistake, the major holders of IP don't want to give society *anything* and they will subvert every part of our legal systems that stands in their way.
But they *have* seen a lot of failure. Sometimes they see it underfoot as they invade a new market. Sometimes they see it in between their teeth after having a development partner over^B^B^B^B^B for dinner. You should respect their understanding of failure.
I wonder if it makes you feel like a man to ridicule someone who doesn't like the CLI. I can tell you it makes you like a snotty teenager, which is what the rest of the world thinks of all Linux enthusiasts. Thanks for perpetuating that particular myth for one more day. You're not doing Linux any good poking its prospective users in the eye for not being as 31337 as you. Wanker.
You're missing the point. The average business user doesn't know LISP, and is frightened by the distinctions between kernel, operating system, distribution, window manager, desktop environment, widget library, theme manager, etc. etc. Widely publishing your feelings about window managers will lead any of the unwashed masses who overhear your ramblings away from Linux and drive them toward the warmth and comfort of Microsoft's bosom. Is that what you want? Or is it just that you want us all to ooh and aah over the depth and breadth of your experience with various *NIX products?
Actually, the WORA deal is important on the server side, too, unless you are married to your server platform. Having server programs that can be deployed on any server with a compatible VM allows you to take a successful internet service running on big iron and quickly package it up for sale to the intranet market, and vice versa. Unless and until MS actually comes up with an OS that can run reliably on truly large servers, WORA for server applications is the best way to keep your options open.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they do. Copying it by playing it on a super-high fidelity system and then miking the speakers is legal. It is only when you circumvent the *technological* measures intended to provide access and/or copy control that you have violated the DMCA.
Uh, yeah. Knowing this prevents conscientious software companies from developing products based on GPL'd software if they have no other source of revenue. Complaining after the fact that your business plan is based on being able to close the source to GPL'd software would be like complaining that you shouldn't be put in jail for robbing the bank because you need the money, and should inspire the same degree of sympathy.
That last 10% is pretty important if it means the difference between life and death for you, as might be the case if the government decides to let your health insurance company deny you coverage for a rare disease because it's not in their economic best interest to pay for an expensive course of treatment. I for one hope that, should this happen to you, you benefit from a government that puts your interests ahead of those of the healthcare insurance industry and forces them to treat you, even at harm to their economic interests.
Maybe you would be glad to die to serve the economic interests of the healthcare insurance industry, but I would mourn the loss of so dedicated a sparring partner. Now don't give me a load of BS about denial of coverage not really serving industrial interests because of lost worker-hours, blah blah blah, because I'm talking about a *rare* disease.
It seems to me that you started the "personal shots" aspect of this thread yourself. I may be an ass, but you're the one who's stupid. I guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it in.
To what will you be changing the subject now that you have been outsmarted again?
Looks to me like you said that supporting the growth of INDUSTRY is what government is all about. Silly me, I see supporting the growth of SOCIETY as what government is all about. You may be right, some (if not most) of the time, the two are the same; my point is that when society's interests and industry's interests do not coincide, it is the duty of government to side with society against industry.
I think your fault was engaging in a discussion with someone who understands the implications of your statements better than you do.
I never said otherwise. Does your admission that regulations can be useful mean you have accepted the statement, "SOCIETY <> INDUSTRY"? That was how this argument got started; you equated the interests of industry with those of society; I had (and still have) a problem with that.
If we have established that sometimes industry's interests are at odds with society's interests, I have made my point.
The problem I have with your "lumber industry" post is this: I said that the interests of industry are not always congruent with the interests of society at large, and the best you could do was come up with an example of when they are congruent. It's as if I had said, "Not all dogs are terriers," and you had replied, "Oh yes they are, see, I have a terrier right here, and it's a dog."
I guess I missed the part where the lumber industry was put in charge of environmental policy for all other industries. I must bow to your greater debating skill, now that this fact has come to light.
Industry may be an important PART of society, but the interests of industry are not necessarily congruent with the interests of society. Imagine a situation where industry were allowed to pollute unchecked. That might be good for industry, but would not be good for society. Or imagine a country with a thriving industrial export sector, that enslaves the 99% of its own people that are not in the business-owning class. Again, good for industry, not good for society. So, I think you can see that what is good for industry is not *always* good for society.
On the other point, I guess you have made up your mind about the subsidies given by the US government to the oil industry; you believe that they are good and right. Why, then, did you deny their existence just a few posts ago? Was it perhaps because your belief in their goodness and rightness is not very strong?
oops. That's SOCIETY <> INDUSTRY
No, government is supposed to support growth of society. Despite whatever corporatist BS you've swallowed, SOCIETY INDUSTRY.
I assume from the lack of comment about the mechanisms by which the US government subsidizes the oil industry that you agree that the subsidies do exist, which you just denied. Which is it? Do the subsidies (which are good and right) exist; or do the subsidies (which would be bad and wrong, if they existed) not exist? You seem unable to make up your mind on this point.
On another note, why can't the government subsidize alternative energies, too? Or is it only industries with a history of large contributions to the republocratic party that are worthy of governmental support?
Recent studies have suggested that the Standard of living is higher in Europe. If the Cost of living is also higher, that would make perfect sense; get more, pay more.
Let's not forget who started the most recent round of "I'm going to invade because I've got a historical claim to your land" BS. It was our "best ally in the region", Israel, staking a claim that was nearly two thousand years old.
Besides, they don't make a very good ally; all their neighbors hate them and us by extension. That's one of the reasons we will always need the Saudis; we can't use Israel as a base of military operations because doing so would kick off a Jihad the likes of which has never been seen.
Once again, I'm not saying we should have let Saddam alone; I'm saying our entering the war when and how we did belies our commitment to defending democracy and exposes the corporate interests that control our foreign and military policies.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have fought the Gulf War; I'm saying if we want to be able to call ourselves "Defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and not "Defenders of Multi-National Corporate Interests", we should have fought it sooner.
And for what it's worth, I for one would be glad if gasoline cost $5 a gallon in the US, which is what it would cost without the massive government subsidies currently being used to depress pump prices. Maybe then alternative energy and mass transit wouldn't look like such a bad idea. As it is, these subsidies wind up costing us more still in lost person-hours worked due to time spent in traffic and never-ending highway construction/repair costs. And don't give me the line about selling cars being good for Detroit; that *might* have been true 25 years ago, but these days more and more of that money goes to Japan and Germany.
When the corporations get their own militaries and have wars, I'll be scared.
Would that be anything like the military the western oil industry mustered to put the smack-down on Saddam? I'm not saying he was a nice guy, but we supported him and looked the other way while he gassed his own people. It wasn't until he threatened to disrupt the oil economy that we got concerned. You are authorized to be scared starting now.
"electional"? Is that from the George W. Bush dictionary? Why is it that the hundreds of thousands of words that are already in the English language are never enough for GWB and his supporters?
Yes, US copyright law does care, in the Digital Millenium. If you circumvented technological access- or copy- control mechanisms to make the copy, you have broken the law, and this is the scary part, *even if you were making a copy that would otherwise have been legal*.
You are absolutely right. Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "They that will trade a little standards compliance for speed of compilation will get neither standards compliance nor speed of compilation." No wait, that was John Adams, no it was James Madison... no, hold on, that wasn't it at all... oh, well, you get the point, I think.
Seriously though, your hardline standards-compliance stance is an idea whose time has either passed or whose time is not yet come. Some facts:
- The defacto standard *is* IE. If you don't believe this, you are in denial.
- The vast majority of web authors are not interested in finding a "long term solution". Not only is finding long term solutions difficult, but doing so harms the web author's job security and besides, most clients expect a complete re-work of their site every once in a while, to keep it fresh.
- As a result of the above, most of the web is optimized for IE.
- Approximately 0% of average users give a good goddamn whether the web page they are viewing is standards compliant.
- Approximately 100% of average users don't care if the browser uses black magic to render the pages as long as the pages be readable.
If Linux wants to attract users, Linux will need a browser that can render the millions of pages already written for IE somewhere near as well as IE can render them. On the other hand, if Linux is hoping to go down in history as a highly standards-compliant system that was too good for this world, then your way is the right choice.Right...and the same holds for copyrights, right? Oh wait, I forgot, nothing published since 1935 will ever enter the public domain, because Disney just keeps getting their copyright to Mickey Mouse extended. What's to stop large patent holders from buying laws to get their patents extended indefinitely? Make no mistake, the major holders of IP don't want to give society *anything* and they will subvert every part of our legal systems that stands in their way.
Good call. I was using ANNI (American National Nonstandard Idiot) encoding.
But they *have* seen a lot of failure. Sometimes they see it underfoot as they invade a new market. Sometimes they see it in between their teeth after having a development partner over^B^B^B^B^B for dinner. You should respect their understanding of failure.
I wonder if it makes you feel like a man to ridicule someone who doesn't like the CLI. I can tell you it makes you like a snotty teenager, which is what the rest of the world thinks of all Linux enthusiasts. Thanks for perpetuating that particular myth for one more day. You're not doing Linux any good poking its prospective users in the eye for not being as 31337 as you. Wanker.
You're missing the point. The average business user doesn't know LISP, and is frightened by the distinctions between kernel, operating system, distribution, window manager, desktop environment, widget library, theme manager, etc. etc. Widely publishing your feelings about window managers will lead any of the unwashed masses who overhear your ramblings away from Linux and drive them toward the warmth and comfort of Microsoft's bosom. Is that what you want? Or is it just that you want us all to ooh and aah over the depth and breadth of your experience with various *NIX products?
Actually, the WORA deal is important on the server side, too, unless you are married to your server platform. Having server programs that can be deployed on any server with a compatible VM allows you to take a successful internet service running on big iron and quickly package it up for sale to the intranet market, and vice versa. Unless and until MS actually comes up with an OS that can run reliably on truly large servers, WORA for server applications is the best way to keep your options open.