Currently, there is an attitude that "taking away the vehicle of the family breadwinner" would constitute an undue hardship on some individual. Yes, it would. But having that individual kill off some other family's breadwinner constitutes what I would call "an undue hardship" on that other family.
The reasoning behind this attitude is solid. I have lived in New Mexico all my life and, with the exception of a few areas, it is pretty much impossible to survive without a vehicle. Public transportation, where it exists, generally does not go to all areas and has a limited schedule. Many people have to commute long distances to get to and from work. The net result is that people will drive. You can take away their license, but people will drive. This isn't excusing their behavior; it is a simple fact.
Personally, I think a better solution would offer more public transportation/safe ride(s) home--preferably very cheap or free (NM is a poor state) and would lock those convicted of drunk driving up every Friday & Saturday night for a certain length of time (the length depending on a number of factors--how many convictions, how intoxicated the individual was). Granted, this wouldn't stop them from druck-driving other nights, but I do think it would help reduce the problem.
First of all, I am simplfying the free software foundation's arguments. I am also not as good at articulating them as RMS. I was, however, pointing out that economics has NO part in the argument of the free software foundation. Contrary to what some may believe, people can believe something is good for reasons other than economics. That being said, I will attempt to clarify the moral right. Again, this is my understanding and it may be wrong. If you are going to argue against RMS, I would advice to actually look at the FSF's website and not go off of what I (or anyone else on slashdot) has said.
Here is the clarification: I have no right whatsoever to your creation. However, if you choose to sell me your creation, you have a moral obligation to give me the source code to allow me to modify the program as I see fit. To sell me the program without any way to modify is to sell me a crippled product. It is analgous to selling me a car with the hood wired shut--if the car breaks down, or if I want to modify it, you have prevented me from doing so. You have claimed to sell me the car when all you have truly sold me is some use of the car (the use that I can get out of the car without opening the hood). While selling crippled products may be legally acceptable, it is morally wrong. My apologies to the FSF if I have mischaracterized the argument..
I am sorry, but that is wrong. Richard Stallmans's argument is one of a moral right to software (that may be simplifying the argument a bit-my point is that he does not base his goal of free software on any economic argument). It has absolutely nothing to do with economics. The open source movement has made the claim that open source is good for business (which, I suppose you can translate into economics). Even if proven that open source is a bad economic idea (a notion which I would disagree with, but just for a hypothetical..), Richard Stallman would still argue that free software is good...it is a moral good.
Furthermore, and this is just a general pet peeve of mine, why is it acceptable to listen to the advice of someone with economic/business background but no technical background? Why should someone who has no technical background, has never written a line of code, has no concept of how much difference a code engineer can make, acceptable to comment on the impact of free vs. commercial software. Note that I am not saying the poster is making the claim, but there seems to be the general sense that you need a business/economic background to run a business or comment on a business decision (ie, the use of free vs. commercial software), but you do not need a technical background. Richard Stallman is very intelligent. I think it is incredibly closed-minded to assume he cannot understand economics or that he knows nothing about it. Further, GM may very well put its best engineer as the companies CEO. Let's not forget how many engineers/technical people have built (and led) very profitable businesses. Here are some examples: HP (as it was when Hewlett and Packard ran it), Bill Gates, Red Hat (I understand he is a computer programmer, but I may be wrong). The list goes on. It is foolish to automatically disregard someone who knows a great deal about the type of business a business is in just because he/she does not have a business background...
I wasn't going to reply to this, but this happens to be my pet peeve. Why is that everyone seems to assume that all citizens support the actions of their government? Just because the US government happens to think that America's laws should apply to every county, why do you assume that this is what Americans want? Most americans I know hate the way our government tries to force everyone to abide by its rules. If you are tired of the American government trying to enforce laws on your country, think of how much it sucks to be forced to comply with every one of our government's draconian IP laws just because corporations have lots of money to buy laws from crooked politicians.
I guess what I am saying is do not be so dense as to presume that the actions of a government increasingly distanced from a population are supported by that population.
Call me stupid, but why can't they use the same material in PCs to increase the chip speed? Are there some limitations/incompatibilities other than the comparitively slow speeds of memory and I/O (I guess we can all see why I never got very far in that EE major...)
But maybe this speaks more to your own ignorance then to any (perceived) reality. To say
that you were just making an exaggeration is to suggest that your overall point about the 'vast majority' still holds - but I sure bet you couldn't even begin to provide the slightest sliver of evidence to document this purported "vast majority".
Which is why I asked the inital question--to find out if my perception (and yes, I will grant you that it is all just my perception) is correct or, in fact, totally inaccurate. I will be the first to admit that preception often deviates far from reality. I do not believe that I am alone in the perception that the vast majority of politicians completely agree with big business on IP issues (I believe that the DMCA passed unanimously in congress, although I could be wrong on that), but I was curious as to what the actual facts are. If I was convinced that I am right, I would not have felt the need to ask the question.
If you read my initial post, I never stated that it was a fact that all (all being an exaggeration) politicians are on the side of big business, I stated that "From my perspective, it seems that...". I never claimed that my perspective is reality, I was only clarifying my perspective.
I thought it was obvious that all was an exaggeration (which is not all that uncommon of an exaggeration--no one truly believes that "all politicians are crooked" or that "all lawyers are unethical"; it is simply a way of indicating the vast majority). However you seem to be determined that every statement must be literal. Yes I am aware of several politicians that are good (including Boucher, who is definitly on our side). However, being able to list a few politicians (I can only think of about 5 to 10 politicians) out of literally hundreds is still a pretty dismal percentage, and I think grouping all of the politicians together in that group is not an unreasonable thing to do (and to those few who are different, I do apologize).
Speaking of getting a grip on reality.... Exaggerations occur. Deal with it
From my perspective, it seems that all of the politicians in congress seem to be firmly in the grasp of big business on intellectual property issues. The arrest of Dmity Sklyarov seems to have been at best ignored, at worst praised, by these politicians. Is my perspective a correct one, or are politicians actually aware of the issues and responsive to viewpoints other than those of big business? Are there any particular politicians that seem more receptive (that could potentially campaign and convince others)?
I am not going to say anything new here, I just felt the more people to "sign" this petition, the better it is.
My reasons for wanting him to be freed are as follows:
1. He did no crime. If anyone is guilty, it may, perhaps, be his employer, but it is NOT him. He built a perfectly legal device in his home country. No one can seriously argue that the US has any jurisdiction over what he did there. The only (weak) case the US has to claim jurisdiction is that his employer subsequently sold Dmitry's program in a country where the program is illegal. Does the US really want to say this prosecution is acceptable? If I am a photographer for Playboy, can I be arrested if my employer sells the magazines in the Middle East? Is this the message the US should be sending?
2. The DMCA is wrong. We do not outlaw lockpicks, crowbars, knives, rat poison, etc, simply because they may be used in an illegal manner. As long as they have some legal use, there is, as far as I know (IANAL) no precendence for outlawing something which has many uses, most of the legal, simply because some of their uses may be illegal. We do not make the tools illegal because their usage in an illegal manner is already illegal. Software should not be different, espically when the outlawing of such "tools" violates so many rights. I don't believe it is ever acceptable to take away basic constitutional rights to protect the already ridiculous profit margins of an industry.
There are a lot of protest organizers (I am one of them for the Denver area) who do not plan on canceling. There is too much momentum built up to lose it now. The focus may change to be on the government, who show no sign of backing down.
You may very well be right from a legal standpoint, however, I think the one of the aims of the GPL is to broaden the terms of what constitutes a "user". In the world of proprietary software, an user is exactly as you describe. In the world of free software, a user can be thought of as a user of the source code, not a user of the binary. In other words, the user is bound by the license, but, since the license only restricts very specific user activities ( the copying and modification of source code), most users do not have to worry about the license (and, in fact, the user only becomes bound by the license once the user modifies and distributes the source code). It is a license that the user implicitly agrees to by doing certain activities. In a sense, that is the same as convential licenses. As long as I only use the software for limited purposes (a paperweight) I am not bound by any license agreement. Once I start doing something more robust with the software ( installing it) I become bound to the agreement. This is the same thing with the GPL. As long as I use the software for limited purposes ( binary use), I am not bound by any agreement. When I want to use it for something more robust ( modifying and distributing) then I become bound by the license. The difference is the degree of freedom allowed to the user and the definition of an user
There is, I am sure, no legal precedence to back this up, but think about how much more useful code would be if all users had the opportunity to change the source code--that it was as much of a right to a user as the right to use the binaries.
I think that a lot of the anti-corporate movement has far less to do with increased government regulation and far more to do with decreased business influence in government. Government readily dispenses favors to the big business, thus securing their monopolies and eventual control. Look at the whol copyright mess. That is government handing big business a monopoly, and it is done under terms dictated by business. There are a lot of other areas government helps out large corporations. Tax breaks, intellectual property laws, decreased tariffs, etc, etc. I am not for more government control of big business, but I am very tired of government sponsorship of these business. Capitilism could potentially work better if it could get the government out the business pockets. Government is suppose to be for the people, by the people, and of the people. It has degraded into a system for big business, about big money, and of corrupt politicians...
I think there is one area that big business control over the net dramatically differs from the McDonaldization of the country. That is, that now, companies have control over everything we read, see, view, and, in a more limited sense, even that which we say. The DMCA has, in effect, allowed private business to become the world's policeforce, monitoring actions done in the home, removing words that pose a threat to their domination.
It is one of the classic methods of an oppresive government. Control what your population can read; control the education of the children. I see both of these happening, only it is now happening with private corporations. Look at how many private corporations are now offering special programs for schools. Look at the the recent legislation that is suppose to "protect" our children. This may be a classic slippery slope argument, but we now allow private corporations to feed information into our schools, to control what we may and may not read and when we may read it, and, even, to regulate speech. How far down the slope to we get before it is a real concern?
Could someone please mod this parent post up? It is submitted by jessica Litman and has two links to some interesting papers from people who agree with current copyright protection.
By the way, thanks for the links to Jessica Litman
Better start with an easy practice round: find someone who has not been paid by the tobacco companies to argue that cigarettes do not cause cancer.
I would use a different tactic. I would find someone not paid by the tobacco companies to argue that the companies should not be liable for consumers usage (after all, they smoked of their own free will, even after massive publication about the dangers of smoking).
I believe that, if someone truly believed in the doom-and-gloom naysayers who argue that, without strong copyright protection, the United State will lose it dominance in the Intellectual Property area (supposedly it dominates, although that may be because everything is considered IP here) or/and believed that strong copyright protection produces more works of better quality, and weakened protection weakens our economy, they may be for the DMCA even without any direct financial motivation.
I do not agree with any of these points, and I am fairly unsure of their validity, I am just saying that it would be nice to hear a good argument for the DMCA so I could know what sort of areas to counter for--I mean, if you have never heard your opponents strongest arguments in a debate, you stand a good chance of not being able to win
I read the book and loved it. It was extremely informative and very easy to read. However, if you are looking for an objective analysis, this book is not very helpful. The author's bias against most copyright law and, specifically, the DMCA, is dominant in almost every part of the book. I agree 100% with her viewpoint, and I probably would not be able to write anything less biased, but it would have been helpful to read the arguments of the other side (an unbiased person from the other side of the argument; not someone who has a significant financial interest in supporting the DMCA).
Still, a fantastic book that I would recommend to anyone
what you're referring to is the notion of 'fair use', which has been enshrined in the very same copyright laws that say it is illegal to do the converse: to make full copies for your own profit (distribution), or to make partial copies passing it off as your own work (plagiarism).
Actually, there is very little legal fair use out there when it comes to digital copying. With the DMCA, it was decided that fair use was not (as it had been previously) the public's side of the copyright bargain. Rather, fair use was the privileges granted to ordinary users because it was not feasible nor necessary to enforce all of the copyright laws on them. With the DMCA, however, it was decided that fair use basically no longer applied. Any time you view/listen/read something on your computer, it is considered a copy (since it must be stored in the RAM). Since any one copy could be turned into thousands of copies via the Internet, you no longer have a right to make a digital copy. Since you cannot bring anything up on your computer without making a digital copy (putting it in RAM), you do not have an inherent right to read/view/listen to something that you own. Therefore, there are no longer fair use rights...
No. This is an illustration of the problems with "hate crime" laws. They are predicated on the theory that it can be criminal to express certain ideas.
Really good point. Looking at it from that point of view, it is even more frightening...
I think this is just the latest in a disturbing trend where our rights have obviously been forfeited in the supposed interest of decreasing crime.
Most Americans are willing to give up certain rights and privileges in order to lessen crime. This is at least part of the gun control debate (those for gun control are willing to give up their right--or privilege, depending on how you read the law--in exchange for less killing). I am not opposed to all of this forfeiture of our rights--certainly the violent crime rate in America demands action, but there has to be a line that we NEVER cross. That, no matter how bad it gets, we do not give up certain rights. A right to free speech is one of those. Granted, no one has the right to make violent threats against another, but, unless the full context of the threat is known, a lot of innocent language could be construed as threatening. This takes away far more of our freedoms that I am personally comfortable (it is also suspicously close to a lot of the action taken against teenagers who may or may not have threatened violence)
My question is, where is the line drawn? Do we truly have a right to free speech at all? Or is the right more of a privilege--we can say certain things, but the scope of what we can say is very narrow. Lately, it seems like the latter is the case. If you are a high-school student, don't talk about violence in any way. If you are against a church, make sure your wording is nice. Is that free speech? I am not sure....
Actually, when it comes to copyright law, all consumers have traditionally been underrepresented. Copyright law is usually created by representatives of various industries with a compelling interest in copyright law getting together and agreeing on a set of rights, pivileges, and exemptions that make all of them happy. This is great for the industries represented, but for those left out ( the average consumer, for example ), this means that they usually get more restrictions on what they can and cannot do with copyrighted material (the scope of fair use) with no exemptions for them (most copyright laws have exemptions put in to keep a particular industry happy--these exemptions are narrow in scope and would not apply to the average consumer)
Without a major overhaul of the system, copyright law will always seek to maximize the profit of industries represented, usually minimizing the rights of the consumer. If we want to stop this trend, there needs to be some sort of consumer's bill of rights enacted that states exactly what is fair use. That way, no industry-led copyright law can restrict it further than it already is.
Where I live, a college student just committed suicide after getting charged with a felony (a minor one; most likely no jail time) in conjunction with a riot.
I am not saying that what the college student or the 13-year old did was acceptable, or undeserving of punishment, but a single felony charge can ruin someone's life. You carry it with you on every job application, on every interaction with the police...everywhere. If the 13-year old truly believed he was facing a felony charge, I can see why he was so upset (not that I understand his taking of his own life...)
I am not saying that he did not deserve his punishment, but if the administration truly did leave the idea in his mind that he may be facing legal problems due to his actions (whether they intentionally let him believe that or carelessly let him believe that..), they were wrong. Were they responsible for his suicide? No. Should they have realized that they were dealing with a child--a 13-year old--and approached the punishment and lecture with far more sensitivity? Most definitly. It is sad that a life is lost over this...
Code is more than functional because it is often the only method of expressing something. For instance, how do you explain recursion without code? I could say, "It is a method calling itself", but this seems weak. If I can use code, I can illustrate the classic example of a factorial function, i.e:
fact(x)=x*fact(x-1)
int factorial(unsigned int x){
if ( (x==0) || (x==1) )
return(1);
else
return(x * factorial(x-1) );
}
I believe the code snippet is far more informative. Also, try explaining the distinction between tail recursion and other recursion without using some code (it someone has a scheme code example it would be nice, I can't think of one).
The problem is that the computer industry has contradictory goals. They want products that should be very robust, powerful, and multifaceted, yet very simple to use (ala Microsoft Office). Think about it...how many systems that are as complex as a large program require no training to learn to use them? Computer companies know that their software and hardware will be interacting with lots of other companies software and hardware, yet they often do not test how their products interact with others. They market their product as being so easy to use, complete computer novices can use it, yet they think of tech support as a last resort that only a few people should need.
In short, the computer industry needs to think about what it wants. Does it want very powerful programs? If so, then these cannot, by their very nature, be used without some form of training (either training in computers in general, training on the product, or both). Is the computer industry friendly to the computer illiterate (and thus, plans on spending a lot more on tech support), or does it assume a certain degree of competency.
Maybe the computer industry just needs marketing to talk to the software engineers and vice versa....
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, there is an attitude that "taking away the vehicle of the family breadwinner" would constitute an undue hardship on some individual. Yes, it would. But having that individual kill off some other family's breadwinner constitutes what I would call "an undue hardship" on that other family.
The reasoning behind this attitude is solid. I have lived in New Mexico all my life and, with the exception of a few areas, it is pretty much impossible to survive without a vehicle. Public transportation, where it exists, generally does not go to all areas and has a limited schedule. Many people have to commute long distances to get to and from work. The net result is that people will drive. You can take away their license, but people will drive. This isn't excusing their behavior; it is a simple fact.
Personally, I think a better solution would offer more public transportation/safe ride(s) home--preferably very cheap or free (NM is a poor state) and would lock those convicted of drunk driving up every Friday & Saturday night for a certain length of time (the length depending on a number of factors--how many convictions, how intoxicated the individual was). Granted, this wouldn't stop them from druck-driving other nights, but I do think it would help reduce the problem.
First of all, I am simplfying the free software foundation's arguments. I am also not as good at articulating them as RMS. I was, however, pointing out that economics has NO part in the argument of the free software foundation. Contrary to what some may believe, people can believe something is good for reasons other than economics. That being said, I will attempt to clarify the moral right. Again, this is my understanding and it may be wrong. If you are going to argue against RMS, I would advice to actually look at the FSF's website and not go off of what I (or anyone else on slashdot) has said.
Here is the clarification: I have no right whatsoever to your creation. However, if you choose to sell me your creation, you have a moral obligation to give me the source code to allow me to modify the program as I see fit. To sell me the program without any way to modify is to sell me a crippled product. It is analgous to selling me a car with the hood wired shut--if the car breaks down, or if I want to modify it, you have prevented me from doing so. You have claimed to sell me the car when all you have truly sold me is some use of the car (the use that I can get out of the car without opening the hood). While selling crippled products may be legally acceptable, it is morally wrong. My apologies to the FSF if I have mischaracterized the argument..
I am sorry, but that is wrong. Richard Stallmans's argument is one of a moral right to software (that may be simplifying the argument a bit-my point is that he does not base his goal of free software on any economic argument). It has absolutely nothing to do with economics. The open source movement has made the claim that open source is good for business (which, I suppose you can translate into economics). Even if proven that open source is a bad economic idea (a notion which I would disagree with, but just for a hypothetical..), Richard Stallman would still argue that free software is good...it is a moral good.
Furthermore, and this is just a general pet peeve of mine, why is it acceptable to listen to the advice of someone with economic/business background but no technical background? Why should someone who has no technical background, has never written a line of code, has no concept of how much difference a code engineer can make, acceptable to comment on the impact of free vs. commercial software. Note that I am not saying the poster is making the claim, but there seems to be the general sense that you need a business/economic background to run a business or comment on a business decision (ie, the use of free vs. commercial software), but you do not need a technical background. Richard Stallman is very intelligent. I think it is incredibly closed-minded to assume he cannot understand economics or that he knows nothing about it. Further, GM may very well put its best engineer as the companies CEO. Let's not forget how many engineers/technical people have built (and led) very profitable businesses. Here are some examples: HP (as it was when Hewlett and Packard ran it), Bill Gates, Red Hat (I understand he is a computer programmer, but I may be wrong). The list goes on. It is foolish to automatically disregard someone who knows a great deal about the type of business a business is in just because he/she does not have a business background...
I wasn't going to reply to this, but this happens to be my pet peeve. Why is that everyone seems to assume that all citizens support the actions of their government? Just because the US government happens to think that America's laws should apply to every county, why do you assume that this is what Americans want? Most americans I know hate the way our government tries to force everyone to abide by its rules. If you are tired of the American government trying to enforce laws on your country, think of how much it sucks to be forced to comply with every one of our government's draconian IP laws just because corporations have lots of money to buy laws from crooked politicians.
I guess what I am saying is do not be so dense as to presume that the actions of a government increasingly distanced from a population are supported by that population.
Call me stupid, but why can't they use the same material in PCs to increase the chip speed? Are there some limitations/incompatibilities other than the comparitively slow speeds of memory and I/O (I guess we can all see why I never got very far in that EE major...)
But maybe this speaks more to your own ignorance then to any (perceived) reality. To say
that you were just making an exaggeration is to suggest that your overall point about the 'vast majority' still holds - but I sure bet you couldn't even begin to provide the slightest sliver of evidence to document this purported "vast majority".
Which is why I asked the inital question--to find out if my perception (and yes, I will grant you that it is all just my perception) is correct or, in fact, totally inaccurate. I will be the first to admit that preception often deviates far from reality. I do not believe that I am alone in the perception that the vast majority of politicians completely agree with big business on IP issues (I believe that the DMCA passed unanimously in congress, although I could be wrong on that), but I was curious as to what the actual facts are. If I was convinced that I am right, I would not have felt the need to ask the question.
If you read my initial post, I never stated that it was a fact that all (all being an exaggeration) politicians are on the side of big business, I stated that "From my perspective, it seems that...". I never claimed that my perspective is reality, I was only clarifying my perspective.
I thought it was obvious that all was an exaggeration (which is not all that uncommon of an exaggeration--no one truly believes that "all politicians are crooked" or that "all lawyers are unethical"; it is simply a way of indicating the vast majority). However you seem to be determined that every statement must be literal. Yes I am aware of several politicians that are good (including Boucher, who is definitly on our side). However, being able to list a few politicians (I can only think of about 5 to 10 politicians) out of literally hundreds is still a pretty dismal percentage, and I think grouping all of the politicians together in that group is not an unreasonable thing to do (and to those few who are different, I do apologize).
Speaking of getting a grip on reality.... Exaggerations occur. Deal with it
From my perspective, it seems that all of the politicians in congress seem to be firmly in the grasp of big business on intellectual property issues. The arrest of Dmity Sklyarov seems to have been at best ignored, at worst praised, by these politicians. Is my perspective a correct one, or are politicians actually aware of the issues and responsive to viewpoints other than those of big business? Are there any particular politicians that seem more receptive (that could potentially campaign and convince others)?
I am not going to say anything new here, I just felt the more people to "sign" this petition, the better it is.
My reasons for wanting him to be freed are as follows:
1. He did no crime. If anyone is guilty, it may, perhaps, be his employer, but it is NOT him. He built a perfectly legal device in his home country. No one can seriously argue that the US has any jurisdiction over what he did there. The only (weak) case the US has to claim jurisdiction is that his employer subsequently sold Dmitry's program in a country where the program is illegal. Does the US really want to say this prosecution is acceptable? If I am a photographer for Playboy, can I be arrested if my employer sells the magazines in the Middle East? Is this the message the US should be sending?
2. The DMCA is wrong. We do not outlaw lockpicks, crowbars, knives, rat poison, etc, simply because they may be used in an illegal manner. As long as they have some legal use, there is, as far as I know (IANAL) no precendence for outlawing something which has many uses, most of the legal, simply because some of their uses may be illegal. We do not make the tools illegal because their usage in an illegal manner is already illegal. Software should not be different, espically when the outlawing of such "tools" violates so many rights. I don't believe it is ever acceptable to take away basic constitutional rights to protect the already ridiculous profit margins of an industry.
That is my 2 cents...
The meeting scheduled for tonight regarding the denver protest is still on. This page has the details
There are a lot of protest organizers (I am one of them for the Denver area) who do not plan on canceling. There is too much momentum built up to lose it now. The focus may change to be on the government, who show no sign of backing down.
There is, I am sure, no legal precedence to back this up, but think about how much more useful code would be if all users had the opportunity to change the source code--that it was as much of a right to a user as the right to use the binaries.
I think that a lot of the anti-corporate movement has far less to do with increased government regulation and far more to do with decreased business influence in government. Government readily dispenses favors to the big business, thus securing their monopolies and eventual control. Look at the whol copyright mess. That is government handing big business a monopoly, and it is done under terms dictated by business. There are a lot of other areas government helps out large corporations. Tax breaks, intellectual property laws, decreased tariffs, etc, etc. I am not for more government control of big business, but I am very tired of government sponsorship of these business. Capitilism could potentially work better if it could get the government out the business pockets. Government is suppose to be for the people, by the people, and of the people. It has degraded into a system for big business, about big money, and of corrupt politicians...
It is one of the classic methods of an oppresive government. Control what your population can read; control the education of the children. I see both of these happening, only it is now happening with private corporations. Look at how many private corporations are now offering special programs for schools. Look at the the recent legislation that is suppose to "protect" our children. This may be a classic slippery slope argument, but we now allow private corporations to feed information into our schools, to control what we may and may not read and when we may read it, and, even, to regulate speech. How far down the slope to we get before it is a real concern?
By the way, thanks for the links to Jessica Litman
I would use a different tactic. I would find someone not paid by the tobacco companies to argue that the companies should not be liable for consumers usage (after all, they smoked of their own free will, even after massive publication about the dangers of smoking).
I believe that, if someone truly believed in the doom-and-gloom naysayers who argue that, without strong copyright protection, the United State will lose it dominance in the Intellectual Property area (supposedly it dominates, although that may be because everything is considered IP here) or/and believed that strong copyright protection produces more works of better quality, and weakened protection weakens our economy, they may be for the DMCA even without any direct financial motivation.
I do not agree with any of these points, and I am fairly unsure of their validity, I am just saying that it would be nice to hear a good argument for the DMCA so I could know what sort of areas to counter for--I mean, if you have never heard your opponents strongest arguments in a debate, you stand a good chance of not being able to win
Still, a fantastic book that I would recommend to anyone
Actually, there is very little legal fair use out there when it comes to digital copying. With the DMCA, it was decided that fair use was not (as it had been previously) the public's side of the copyright bargain. Rather, fair use was the privileges granted to ordinary users because it was not feasible nor necessary to enforce all of the copyright laws on them. With the DMCA, however, it was decided that fair use basically no longer applied. Any time you view/listen/read something on your computer, it is considered a copy (since it must be stored in the RAM). Since any one copy could be turned into thousands of copies via the Internet, you no longer have a right to make a digital copy. Since you cannot bring anything up on your computer without making a digital copy (putting it in RAM), you do not have an inherent right to read/view/listen to something that you own. Therefore, there are no longer fair use rights...
Really good point. Looking at it from that point of view, it is even more frightening...
Most Americans are willing to give up certain rights and privileges in order to lessen crime. This is at least part of the gun control debate (those for gun control are willing to give up their right--or privilege, depending on how you read the law--in exchange for less killing). I am not opposed to all of this forfeiture of our rights--certainly the violent crime rate in America demands action, but there has to be a line that we NEVER cross. That, no matter how bad it gets, we do not give up certain rights. A right to free speech is one of those. Granted, no one has the right to make violent threats against another, but, unless the full context of the threat is known, a lot of innocent language could be construed as threatening. This takes away far more of our freedoms that I am personally comfortable (it is also suspicously close to a lot of the action taken against teenagers who may or may not have threatened violence)
My question is, where is the line drawn? Do we truly have a right to free speech at all? Or is the right more of a privilege--we can say certain things, but the scope of what we can say is very narrow. Lately, it seems like the latter is the case. If you are a high-school student, don't talk about violence in any way. If you are against a church, make sure your wording is nice. Is that free speech? I am not sure....
Without a major overhaul of the system, copyright law will always seek to maximize the profit of industries represented, usually minimizing the rights of the consumer. If we want to stop this trend, there needs to be some sort of consumer's bill of rights enacted that states exactly what is fair use. That way, no industry-led copyright law can restrict it further than it already is.
I am not saying that what the college student or the 13-year old did was acceptable, or undeserving of punishment, but a single felony charge can ruin someone's life. You carry it with you on every job application, on every interaction with the police...everywhere. If the 13-year old truly believed he was facing a felony charge, I can see why he was so upset (not that I understand his taking of his own life...)
I am not saying that he did not deserve his punishment, but if the administration truly did leave the idea in his mind that he may be facing legal problems due to his actions (whether they intentionally let him believe that or carelessly let him believe that..), they were wrong. Were they responsible for his suicide? No. Should they have realized that they were dealing with a child--a 13-year old--and approached the punishment and lecture with far more sensitivity? Most definitly. It is sad that a life is lost over this...
fact(x)=x*fact(x-1)
int factorial(unsigned int x){
if ( (x==0) || (x==1) )
return(1);
else
return(x * factorial(x-1) );
}
I believe the code snippet is far more informative. Also, try explaining the distinction between tail recursion and other recursion without using some code (it someone has a scheme code example it would be nice, I can't think of one).
Anyhow, that is my two cents.
You can find it here.
In short, the computer industry needs to think about what it wants. Does it want very powerful programs? If so, then these cannot, by their very nature, be used without some form of training (either training in computers in general, training on the product, or both). Is the computer industry friendly to the computer illiterate (and thus, plans on spending a lot more on tech support), or does it assume a certain degree of competency.
Maybe the computer industry just needs marketing to talk to the software engineers and vice versa....