According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure.
Everybody knows terrorists love to target Mozilla users by sending them links which causes there system to email Star Office attachments to everybody with payloads that will delete all your OGGs and PNGs by exploiting security holes in Sendmail.
First and foremost, you're confusing a Conceptual Model with advanced abstract theories and design methodologies. Secondly, A Conceptual Model doesn't aim to substitute practice and prerequisite knowledge; a Conceptual Model aims to make concepts more familiar.
What we're talking are notations and analogies to explain basic algorithm design and assembly by capitalizing on what people already know about algorithms. Many people already know how to solve some pretty advanced problems with multiple steps using tools they're familiar with. A good Conceptual Model tries to apply a person's existing problem solving skills to a new paradigm where the tools are unfamiliar and the vernacular is cryptic.
While I can understand the benefit of learning lessons the hard way (you boot and blister analogy), some lessons are learned the hard way needlessly. Let's pick our lessons wisely, especially if a conceptual model could save someone 2 semesters of needless deciphering.
When will we learn that the biggest threat to our liberty is not governments or corporations, but *CORRUPTION* of our legal framework and institutions.
Capitalism works very well with a solid legal framework and institutions that make running a business accessible. Without these key ingredients you have a recipe for a third-world country like many South American economies.
Today, Corporations have a lot of access and influence on our legal framework and institutions, so it's not surprising they use their influence to legislate and create bureaucracy advantageous to their interests.
Stop Beating up on Corporations, They employ us...
As much as corporation hating has become popular so has defending corporations. Taking one side or the other does nothing to address the real problem, let alone solve it, insofar as those problems root in the institutions and legal framework.
Arguing does nothing to address Rampant Corruption
This starts with every one of us. We need spread the word that corporation hating does nothing but start a backlash with people who have the same objectives we do, while corporation loving doing nothing to address the problem of rampant corruption. All of us want to preserve what made our economy great, and attack that which threatens the economy and our opportunities.
STRICT Anti-Corruption Measures may save Capitalism
I know campaign finance reform is one tiny start, maybe some of you can clue me on some other great ideas.
(Feel free to copy/rewrite/steal my ideas and call them your own, just try to improve on them)
I'm sorry, but you must be really obtuse if you can't tell the difference between charging someone per download and Per-Seat licensing.
As far as charging per download, RMS doesn't have a problem with that as it's a distribution cost just like CD's and boxes. RMS knows bandwidth isn't free and he allows this.
The GPL provides me a way to share my ideas and tools witht the world and allows me to decide how it's distributed. It gives *me* control over *my* hard work, so that if someone wants to improve on my work, I can require they give it back to the community like I did.
The GPL aims to prevent blatent exploitation of people's charitable hard work, ESPECIALLY when it RESTRICTS the distribution of that work, which PER-SEAT LICENSING does...
Don't get me wrong, they can PER-SEAT license THIER code all they want, just don't try it with OUR code.
Don't like the viral nature of the GPL, then write you own damn code.
The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment.
The KEY controversy isn't about libel and the 1st amendment, it's about jurisdiction. I suspect you may have picked that up, but your post didn't convince me you did.
I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
I have a problem with states with vague and overbroad libel laws that can be easily exploited. How about you keep your libel laws in your state, and I'll keep my libel laws in my state. For good faith, I won't publish anything in your state, so I can enjoy the freedoms in my state.
Broadcasters and Newspapers are able to selectively publish and air to specific regions (large regions, but selective) if they want to avoid jurisdictional problems with specific broadcasts, if they choose.
This isn't the case with the Internet, how do you restrict which states can view your website and which can't?
The part that makes this a "The Sky is falling" scenerio is that a precident like this doesn't limit itself to libel, and opens itself up for exploitation from ambitious states who might want to silence more than just libel with thier own loose definitions in thier laws.
Forget speech for a moment, this type of jurisdiction ambiguity is practically inviting a state to legislate it's own tyrannical version of the DMCA and enforce it everywhere in the US because by being on the Internet, it's being trafficked in that State.
I'm not suggesting my scenerio will happen, it's too brash and understood by too many. Smart politicians like to legislate laws that seem harmless enough and are difficult to explain, but are effective for whoever bought them.
I can understand the urge to go against the Slashdot crowd, as they're great at trivializing issues like this with trite and obtuse interpretations, just try to resist turning it into a knee jerk reaction.
1. They will obvious make exceptions if they want this law to pass. 2. As long as you're debating about A to D converters, no average person is going to care what you're saying.
Make this situation relate to people
If you tell people this bill aims to outlaw thier Tivo's, and copying from VHS to DVD, they will wonder why.
THEN you can talk about A to D converters
There will be more laws
Even if the MPAA doesn't pass this bill, they will submit another. I'm sure they've gone through a number of ideas for bills and scenerios for getting them through.
One will get passed
As soon as this issue reaches a critical mass the MPAA/RIAA is BOUND to pass another law, as the general sentiment from the public will be, "they had to do something, we can't let mass piracy go rampant."
How can we detour mass piracy while preserving fair use?
Unless you don't believe in copyrights, you should be talking about this question, because it's the question the public wants an answer to. You're trying to convince the average person we need to preserve fair use, right? Isn't P2P piracy an abuse of fair use? People want to preserve fair use, but not at the expense of the copyright. How can we return the system to what it was before Napster?
One organization is driven by profits to produce the least amount of lowest-common denominator bands that would maximize profits, while the other organization is driven by profits to play lowest-common denominator bands.
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
I agree with you insofar as most gamers probably don't want "true realism", however everybody has thier own definition of fun.
Take the Sims for example: Pointless to many, but the slow moving, not so mentally taxing, simulation is fun for millions of people. Nobody thought this was what the gaming community wanted, in part they were right. The traditional gaming community didn't want it, the people who had reasons to hate other games DID want a doll house game.
This seems to be on the other end of the Spectrum, for people who want a REAL challenge to see if they can survive the Army's simulation of REAL battle. Y
You're not interested to see how well you would par, or how quickly you can become the master of simulated modern warfare?
Sure, it goes against balancing ease with reality, but some people find overcoming the challenge to be fun.
People won't REALLY understand the scope of the SS#/identity-theft problem when you relate it as an ID number and not as a Password.
The solution is to detour companies from using your SS# number as a password by making them liable for any damages, then add some fines on top of that.
Technology should regulate traffic not Beauracracy
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 2
Nobody's suggesting we just unregulate everything. If you read the article, you would have noticed the following:
Reed wants the FCC to open up some spectrum for these more open wireless networks, giving entrepreneurs a new public space in which to innovate and create value for the rest of us.
It sounds like this guy wants to open up a spectrum that would use a very smart/adaptive protocol for open data/voice communications.
What's so crazy about that?
He isn't talking about Ultra Wide Band?
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 1
UWB is a technology that uses the entire spectrum. He's talking about using traditional radio technology more effiently.
But software IS special
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Before I rant, I just wanted to say you made a great point, that people need to address, and address with constructive criticism. One does get sick and tired of hearing of why software patents suck, without any ideas or comprimises to fix the problems.
SOFTWARE IS SPECIAL
Software is collection of works written in an advanced mathematical notation, which is why it enjoys the benefits copyright, and makes it more like writing a book or a song than creating a device.
It NO MORE a "functional element" to it as does a collection of mathmematical works does, or ANY OTHER notation. It IS being singled out because this is a very precise form of expressing ideas and can be automatically simulated on a computer, just as any other precice notation might enjoy.
Can Software be patented? No, No more than you can patent a riff or a literary element or a mathematical function. Even if the riff, or literary element, or mathematical formula can be simulated and execute on a computer.
Should Software be patentable? Personally, I would make a provision so one could enjoy a 5 years exclusive use of a non-obvious software implementations, just to give software researchers a little incentive.
SOFTWARE PATENT LAWYER QUESTION
Do you think you can forward me to a resource or a ruling which might shed some light on this question?
1. Can I get around a software patent by only publishing the source code? 2. Non-commercially? 3. Will releasing it into the public domain remove liability? 4. Can I host public domain source code which implements a software patent?
Or can appreciate people who don't like video games.
Take my girlfriend for example: She's really not into the objective nature of most video games which either keep the game interesting by appealing the need for visual stimulation (Quake)or mental simulation (Command and Conquer).
There are a slew of people who get dizzy from all the visual stimulation and don't want to joggle the brain with strategy games.
The Sims doesn't make people dizzy and they can't lose, because they're not in competition with another player or AI.
Really it's the first really successful girl friendly game, and one of the reasons people like it because they can explore scenerios with the Sims that they wouldn't otherwise risk in thier own lives.
It's not that hard to figure out if you can make an effort to understand why people don't like every other game.
What would the founding fathers think if you couldn't EVEN publish a list of your enemies?
Why should people not have the right to advocate murder of individuals, when the state has the right to advocate and execute murders.
Precidents like this *might* protect some abortion docters, but what it really does is create a refuge for the corrupt.
Re: Sonny Bono kills your argument
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
I'm very aware that copyrights keep being extended, what I'm suggesting is that derivative works have no bearing on when the copyright will expire, which seemed to be what the original posters was saying. Was it???
Extending copyrights indefinitely is definitely a Bad Thing(tm).
Your congress critters already made a provision for handling this and put it in the DMCA so ISP's and websites wouldn't get sued into oblivion if this scenerio happened.
If someone has copyed and posted your work, here's what you or any other copyright hold has to do.
If you have a lesser work, all you have to do it tell the nice people at Creative Commons to remove links to people infringing on your copyright. Then send another nice letter to the ISP who's hosting your copyrighted material.
If you want to attack the root of the problem, you can even take the copyright infringer to court for damages.
Napster case DEMONSTRATES Copyright holders burden
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
And what happened to Napster with that same philosophy? This "I can get away with it as long as I don't get caught" mentality is positively sickening.
You obviously didn't understand the Napster case, because if you did, you would have understand they ruled that Napster wasn't fulfilling thier part to prevent the posting/trading of KNOWN copyrighted material.
The RECORD INDUSTRY IS RESPONSIBLE for providing Napster with a list of known copyrighted works which can't be added to the database for trading.
Creative Commons is considered an ISP. If I posted copyrighted MP3's on my website hosted by my ISP, my ISP could be help liable on two conditions.
1. They knew I was posting copyrighted MP3's and ignored it.
2. The copyright holder notified them, and they did nothing.
The RIAA's case against Napster was that they notified Napster of the copyright infringement, and Napster didn't nothing to prevent those known copyrighted works from being traded.
Do you get it now?
Why would code be any different?
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
If someone submits copyrighted material (art, music, code) to a public website the website isn't held liable unless they were notified the material is copyrighted.
That doesn't mean the poster can't be held liable...
What do you mean by entangled in derivative works?
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
From what I understand, copyrighted works will expire after X years after the issuing of copyright, regardless of it's use in other copyrighted materials, so I can't really see how derivitive works can entangle original works so as to cause them to expire at a later date.
Good question... It's taken care off...
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
First of all, Creative Commons isn't really a new idea. Slashdot, MP3.com, and a slew of other websites allow users to post text, movies, music, and images that could be copyrighted.
What happens when someone posts MC Hammer on MP3.com? In this case, it is up to the copyright holder to notify MP3.com that they are infringing on thier copyright and to remove the material. If MP3.com does not comply, then the copyright holder can sue MP3.com, but only if MP3.com does not comply.
What if I submit copyrighted material on Slashdot?
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
This really isn't a problem as it's been addressed with any other website that hosts text, images or movies.
Slashdot, Creative Commons or any other website can only be held liable if they fail to remove the offending content upon request of the copyright holder or if they were responsible for posting the copyrighted material.
Not everybody has MTV dreams...
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 2
This project isn't target to people who want to be rock stars or commercial artists. Believe it or not, there are a lot of charitable people who donate thier time an efforts so they can inspire people, and this is a project to give the options to how they donate thier work to the public.
I agree that most people want to make a lot of money, but you're also underestimating the charitable nature of people.
I say take a more targeted approach for now and go to college when, and only when, you become bored, burnt out, disenchanted, frustrated and really sick and tired of all those god damned "college boys" who make more than you but REALLY just don't know DICK!
I'm still not sure if this guy is being a troll, sarcastic, or serious. Either way, he makes a great point for getting your degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Obligitory reference to story posted earlier today...
'Think Tank' Issues Microsoft-Funded Troll
According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft." The Register's story is good too. All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure.
Everybody knows terrorists love to target Mozilla users by sending them links which causes there system to email Star Office attachments to everybody with payloads that will delete all your OGGs and PNGs by exploiting security holes in Sendmail.
First and foremost, you're confusing a Conceptual Model with advanced abstract theories and design methodologies. Secondly, A Conceptual Model doesn't aim to substitute practice and prerequisite knowledge; a Conceptual Model aims to make concepts more familiar.
What we're talking are notations and analogies to explain basic algorithm design and assembly by capitalizing on what people already know about algorithms. Many people already know how to solve some pretty advanced problems with multiple steps using tools they're familiar with. A good Conceptual Model tries to apply a person's existing problem solving skills to a new paradigm where the tools are unfamiliar and the vernacular is cryptic.
While I can understand the benefit of learning lessons the hard way (you boot and blister analogy), some lessons are learned the hard way needlessly. Let's pick our lessons wisely, especially if a conceptual model could save someone 2 semesters of needless deciphering.
So, which really corrupts -- money, or power?
3
Kuro5hin had an interest article on this...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/5/28/192548/03
When will we learn that the biggest threat to our liberty is not governments or corporations, but *CORRUPTION* of our legal framework and institutions.
Capitalism works very well with a solid legal framework and institutions that make running a business accessible. Without these key ingredients you have a recipe for a third-world country like many South American economies.
Today, Corporations have a lot of access and influence on our legal framework and institutions, so it's not surprising they use their influence to legislate and create bureaucracy advantageous to their interests.
Stop Beating up on Corporations, They employ us...
As much as corporation hating has become popular so has defending corporations. Taking one side or the other does nothing to address the real problem, let alone solve it, insofar as those problems root in the institutions and legal framework.
Arguing does nothing to address Rampant Corruption
This starts with every one of us. We need spread the word that corporation hating does nothing but start a backlash with people who have the same objectives we do, while corporation loving doing nothing to address the problem of rampant corruption. All of us want to preserve what made our economy great, and attack that which threatens the economy and our opportunities.
STRICT Anti-Corruption Measures may save Capitalism
I know campaign finance reform is one tiny start, maybe some of you can clue me on some other great ideas.
(Feel free to copy/rewrite/steal my ideas and call them your own, just try to improve on them)
I'm sorry, but you must be really obtuse if you can't tell the difference between charging someone per download and Per-Seat licensing.
As far as charging per download, RMS doesn't have a problem with that as it's a distribution cost just like CD's and boxes. RMS knows bandwidth isn't free and he allows this.
The GPL provides me a way to share my ideas and tools witht the world and allows me to decide how it's distributed. It gives *me* control over *my* hard work, so that if someone wants to improve on my work, I can require they give it back to the community like I did.
The GPL aims to prevent blatent exploitation of people's charitable hard work, ESPECIALLY when it RESTRICTS the distribution of that work, which PER-SEAT LICENSING does...
Don't get me wrong, they can PER-SEAT license THIER code all they want, just don't try it with OUR code.
Don't like the viral nature of the GPL, then write you own damn code.
The case here involves someone suing libel. Slander, and not telling the truth are not protected under the first amendment.
The KEY controversy isn't about libel and the 1st amendment, it's about jurisdiction. I suspect you may have picked that up, but your post didn't convince me you did.
I think the problem comes when publishers (and other media for that matter) that have in the past published blatant lies, but are protected by a certain states week libel laws.
I have a problem with states with vague and overbroad libel laws that can be easily exploited. How about you keep your libel laws in your state, and I'll keep my libel laws in my state. For good faith, I won't publish anything in your state, so I can enjoy the freedoms in my state.
Broadcasters and Newspapers are able to selectively publish and air to specific regions (large regions, but selective) if they want to avoid jurisdictional problems with specific broadcasts, if they choose.
This isn't the case with the Internet, how do you restrict which states can view your website and which can't?
The part that makes this a "The Sky is falling" scenerio is that a precident like this doesn't limit itself to libel, and opens itself up for exploitation from ambitious states who might want to silence more than just libel with thier own loose definitions in thier laws.
Forget speech for a moment, this type of jurisdiction ambiguity is practically inviting a state to legislate it's own tyrannical version of the DMCA and enforce it everywhere in the US because by being on the Internet, it's being trafficked in that State.
I'm not suggesting my scenerio will happen, it's too brash and understood by too many. Smart politicians like to legislate laws that seem harmless enough and are difficult to explain, but are effective for whoever bought them.
I can understand the urge to go against the Slashdot crowd, as they're great at trivializing issues like this with trite and obtuse interpretations, just try to resist turning it into a knee jerk reaction.
Talking about A to D converters is pointless...
1. They will obvious make exceptions if they want this law to pass.
2. As long as you're debating about A to D converters, no average person is going to care what you're saying.
Make this situation relate to people
If you tell people this bill aims to outlaw thier Tivo's, and copying from VHS to DVD, they will wonder why.
THEN you can talk about A to D converters
There will be more laws
Even if the MPAA doesn't pass this bill, they will submit another. I'm sure they've gone through a number of ideas for bills and scenerios for getting them through.
One will get passed
As soon as this issue reaches a critical mass the MPAA/RIAA is BOUND to pass another law, as the general sentiment from the public will be, "they had to do something, we can't let mass piracy go rampant."
How can we detour mass piracy while preserving fair use?
Unless you don't believe in copyrights, you should be talking about this question, because it's the question the public wants an answer to. You're trying to convince the average person we need to preserve fair use, right? Isn't P2P piracy an abuse of fair use? People want to preserve fair use, but not at the expense of the copyright. How can we return the system to what it was before Napster?
One organization is driven by profits to produce the least amount of lowest-common denominator bands that would maximize profits, while the other organization is driven by profits to play lowest-common denominator bands.
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
I agree with you insofar as most gamers probably don't want "true realism", however everybody has thier own definition of fun.
Take the Sims for example: Pointless to many, but the slow moving, not so mentally taxing, simulation is fun for millions of people. Nobody thought this was what the gaming community wanted, in part they were right. The traditional gaming community didn't want it, the people who had reasons to hate other games DID want a doll house game.
This seems to be on the other end of the Spectrum, for people who want a REAL challenge to see if they can survive the Army's simulation of REAL battle. Y
You're not interested to see how well you would par, or how quickly you can become the master of simulated modern warfare?
Sure, it goes against balancing ease with reality, but some people find overcoming the challenge to be fun.
People won't REALLY understand the scope of the SS#/identity-theft problem when you relate it as an ID number and not as a Password.
The solution is to detour companies from using your SS# number as a password by making them liable for any damages, then add some fines on top of that.
Nobody's suggesting we just unregulate everything. If you read the article, you would have noticed the following:
Reed wants the FCC to open up some spectrum for these more open wireless networks, giving entrepreneurs a new public space in which to innovate and create value for the rest of us.
It sounds like this guy wants to open up a spectrum that would use a very smart/adaptive protocol for open data/voice communications.
What's so crazy about that?
UWB is a technology that uses the entire spectrum. He's talking about using traditional radio technology more effiently.
Before I rant, I just wanted to say you made a great point, that people need to address, and address with constructive criticism. One does get sick and tired of hearing of why software patents suck, without any ideas or comprimises to fix the problems.
SOFTWARE IS SPECIAL
Software is collection of works written in an advanced mathematical notation, which is why it enjoys the benefits copyright, and makes it more like writing a book or a song than creating a device.
It NO MORE a "functional element" to it as does a collection of mathmematical works does, or ANY OTHER notation. It IS being singled out because this is a very precise form of expressing ideas and can be automatically simulated on a computer, just as any other precice notation might enjoy.
Can Software be patented? No, No more than you can patent a riff or a literary element or a mathematical function. Even if the riff, or literary element, or mathematical formula can be simulated and execute on a computer.
Should Software be patentable? Personally, I would make a provision so one could enjoy a 5 years exclusive use of a non-obvious software implementations, just to give software researchers a little incentive.
SOFTWARE PATENT LAWYER QUESTION
Do you think you can forward me to a resource or a ruling which might shed some light on this question?
1. Can I get around a software patent by only publishing the source code?
2. Non-commercially?
3. Will releasing it into the public domain remove liability?
4. Can I host public domain source code which implements a software patent?
Or can appreciate people who don't like video games.
Take my girlfriend for example: She's really not into the objective nature of most video games which either keep the game interesting by appealing the need for visual stimulation (Quake)or mental simulation (Command and Conquer).
There are a slew of people who get dizzy from all the visual stimulation and don't want to joggle the brain with strategy games.
The Sims doesn't make people dizzy and they can't lose, because they're not in competition with another player or AI.
Really it's the first really successful girl friendly game, and one of the reasons people like it because they can explore scenerios with the Sims that they wouldn't otherwise risk in thier own lives.
It's not that hard to figure out if you can make an effort to understand why people don't like every other game.
What would the founding fathers think if you couldn't EVEN publish a list of your enemies?
Why should people not have the right to advocate murder of individuals, when the state has the right to advocate and execute murders.
Precidents like this *might* protect some abortion docters, but what it really does is create a refuge for the corrupt.
I'm very aware that copyrights keep being extended, what I'm suggesting is that derivative works have no bearing on when the copyright will expire, which seemed to be what the original posters was saying. Was it???
Extending copyrights indefinitely is definitely a Bad Thing(tm).
Your congress critters already made a provision for handling this and put it in the DMCA so ISP's and websites wouldn't get sued into oblivion if this scenerio happened.
If someone has copyed and posted your work, here's what you or any other copyright hold has to do.
If you have a lesser work, all you have to do it tell the nice people at Creative Commons to remove links to people infringing on your copyright. Then send another nice letter to the ISP who's hosting your copyrighted material.
If you want to attack the root of the problem, you can even take the copyright infringer to court for damages.
And what happened to Napster with that same philosophy? This "I can get away with it as long as I don't get caught" mentality is positively sickening.
You obviously didn't understand the Napster case, because if you did, you would have understand they ruled that Napster wasn't fulfilling thier part to prevent the posting/trading of KNOWN copyrighted material.
The RECORD INDUSTRY IS RESPONSIBLE for providing Napster with a list of known copyrighted works which can't be added to the database for trading.
Creative Commons is considered an ISP. If I posted copyrighted MP3's on my website hosted by my ISP, my ISP could be help liable on two conditions.
1. They knew I was posting copyrighted MP3's and ignored it.
2. The copyright holder notified them, and they did nothing.
The RIAA's case against Napster was that they notified Napster of the copyright infringement, and Napster didn't nothing to prevent those known copyrighted works from being traded.
Do you get it now?
If someone submits copyrighted material (art, music, code) to a public website the website isn't held liable unless they were notified the material is copyrighted.
That doesn't mean the poster can't be held liable...
From what I understand, copyrighted works will expire after X years after the issuing of copyright, regardless of it's use in other copyrighted materials, so I can't really see how derivitive works can entangle original works so as to cause them to expire at a later date.
First of all, Creative Commons isn't really a new idea. Slashdot, MP3.com, and a slew of other websites allow users to post text, movies, music, and images that could be copyrighted.
What happens when someone posts MC Hammer on MP3.com? In this case, it is up to the copyright holder to notify MP3.com that they are infringing on thier copyright and to remove the material. If MP3.com does not comply, then the copyright holder can sue MP3.com, but only if MP3.com does not comply.
This really isn't a problem as it's been addressed with any other website that hosts text, images or movies.
Slashdot, Creative Commons or any other website can only be held liable if they fail to remove the offending content upon request of the copyright holder or if they were responsible for posting the copyrighted material.
This project isn't target to people who want to be rock stars or commercial artists. Believe it or not, there are a lot of charitable people who donate thier time an efforts so they can inspire people, and this is a project to give the options to how they donate thier work to the public.
I agree that most people want to make a lot of money, but you're also underestimating the charitable nature of people.
Too bad the moderators were too obtuse to appreciate it.
I say take a more targeted approach for now and go to college when, and only when, you become bored, burnt out, disenchanted, frustrated and really sick and tired of all those god damned "college boys" who make more than you but REALLY just don't know DICK!
I'm still not sure if this guy is being a troll, sarcastic, or serious. Either way, he makes a great point for getting your degree.