The recording industry knows these things are perfectly legal, but they are so greedy they are willing to sacrifice our ability to do these perfectly legal
things to secure for themselves a few more dollars.
The shame of it all is that in the end, they will bury themselves. The more restrictive the technology they use to distribute their music is, the sooner the public will lose respect for them and their copyright. They will force people like me to use unprotected, unpayed-for MP3s, because while we want to listen to (and pay for) music, we are unwilling to do so on their terms.
I mean really now - when faced with the potential options - purchase (for $20) a SuperDigitalMediaDevice which includes bizarre contracts and anti-copy provisions, or make your own for 1/10th the cost, from high quality, free, unrestricted MP3s, the legality becomes a non-issue (for most people).
And the situation gets worse when they start using proprietary formats that are unsupported in unpopular environments!
It's a shame, but the industry is forcing me to "steal" their music.
I need music. I want to consume music under the terms granted in copyright law. If the big boys can't follow these terms, then I don't have any choice other than to "steal" the music by downloading MP3 versions of songs I like, with no money going to copyright holders or artists.
I wish there was another way. But, alas, it looks like "theft" may be my only option.
Hey - I just had an interesting thought. We (the free software community) have a powerful weapon in our arsenal against stupidty like this. We should change the GPL to state that all organizations listed on a particular web site are suspended from using GPL'ed software for any purpose. Then, we can start listing off organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, australian government (copyright office), etc., at will, when they do something bad.;)
Hmm.. so how long before the Australian version of Outlook (required, of course, for government compliance) includes a "no-forward" or "no-copy" checkbox for email messages, and refuses to forward/save emails marked with it?
*I hereby give you written permission to forward this message*
This "permission" is and always has been implied when sending email, unless explicitly denied.
In otherwords, if you're sending email which you don't want forwarded (because 99.995% of sent around the world don't carry this bit), it is your responsibility to state so.
This email is confidential/proprietary/personal, and the receiver is not authorized to forward it to any external entity.
There, that was easy - and people have been doing this for years. And note, that you cannot deny forwarding completely, because under fair use rights (in the US & Canada) one has the inherent right to copy for personal use (forwarding to a different account).
Come on. No substantial copyright exists in any work of less than 200 words, because that's the limit for an excerpt under fair use.
Forget about all that. Let's just use common sense in the courtroom. The question is simple:
Would the reasonable person expect that forwarding the email in question was in breach of copyright? Was the material sensitive (confidential / private)? Was the plaintiff (if it's a civil case) injured/damaged, or likely to be? Did the email represent significant commercial value? Etc.
I propose that permission to forward email is given by default and must be explicitly denied, or be obviously (to the reasonable person) denied (because it fits one of the categories above).
Life is not binary. There is no 1/0, clearcut answer to anything, and laws like this make me livid. As I said earlier, I want everyone who approves of this law as it is (suggested to be) written to spend 5 years in jail, and pay $60k, so they realize how serious these penalties are. Maybe then they would think twice before supporting offensive laws like this.
Someone needs to pay for this. The politician who passed this law, and all of those who support it, should be jailed for 5 years, and pay $60k, so they realize what a significant impact on a human life such a penalty imposes.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the "more equal" citizens of the world think they're playing some big real-life game like age of empires (poking a citizen and making them do something) - completely detached from the people they're hurting.
Sorry, but I think you're wrong. People use the words "steal" and "theft" to mean "taking something that isn't yours". It doesn't matter whether you're
copying or moving it.
I know they do. That's what I'm complaining about. I think people should stop.
Forgive me but you are the biggest self deluded fool on slashdot today.
I wouldn't go that far.;)
And its not even enough that you are an
intellectual fraud, you also appear quite smug about.
Intellectual fraud? I don't understand.
Hey bozo, I compose and write music that you can only enjoy on _my_ fucking terms. Either you get that through your puny little head or you stew while
the world passes you right the fuck by for being the sanctimonious, disingenuous twit that you are.
Well that one came right outta left field.
What did I say in my previous post that suggested to you that I don't believe in information trade? I mean really now. My post was about the abuse of the English words theft and stolen - and for good reason - because it belittles victims of real theft, and because it is misleading (it confuses the concept of moving an object with the concept of cloning an object).
You are entitled to NOTHING I create. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nothing unless its on my fucking terms.
And you to nothing I create, and license under a restrictive covenant. I am profitting tremendously because of the intellectual property laws of Canada. I don't want to see them scrapped, because if they were, I might become poor.. and that would suck.
Try re-reading my post, but instead of interpolating "intellectual property sucks," read it for what it says - that copying data is not theft.
Why is it a reasonable to steal other peoples' property just because you don't think
they have a right to it in the first place.
Dear god, make the hurting stop.
I'm sorry you're the one to bear the brunt of my frustration, but I am just so sick of hearing this garbage regurgitated again and again.
When you pick apple off a tree, what do you call it? If someone looks at you, and says, "hey, what is that," do you reply "this is an apple," or "this is an orange?"
Most rational people would reply "this is an apple." It's important to keep our apples together, and our oranges together - and the two separate - when dealing with things. In this way, we can think logically and coherently, without confusing ourselves or each other.
Here's a good one. When you right-click-drag an icon in Windows (I'm sure you've used Windows before), and you get that little menu (you know, the one that says copy, move, cancel, etc.), do you know why they differentiate between copy and move? They do so, because copy and move are different operations. One copies, the other moves.
Queue the music.
When you steal, you move an object.
When you copy, you copy an object.
Data cannot be stolen. The best we can do, is equate "stealing of data" with a copy and erase (that is, you copy the source, and then erase it). Thankfully, computers are very good at copying data, without erasing it (at least, from a user's perspective).
Here's a good one.. would you prefer that I steal your computer's hard disk, or image it? Don't say neither. That's not the point. If I were to do it, which would you prefer? Should I image that cd, or image it, then destroy it? In order to think clearly about the subject, we must differentiate between copying, and stealing.
And please - don't give me any of this horseshit about lost revenue. It is not an absolute. If it were, it would be solid basis for a copy == theft equation. But since copying data does not always result in lost revenue (for example, when a person copies data with no intent or ability to pay for it otherwise), it is a poor argument.
Copying data (for personal or commercial gain, or not) may be unethical and/or illegal, for the love of humanity, IT IS NOT THEFT. Say it a hundred times.
No way, the EULA's bundled inside the toaster so by the time you read it, you're already screwed.
A piece of paper inside a toaster box isn't a license, or contract. It's just a factually incorrect statement. Presumably, the arguement behind EULAs holds because the user "signs" the contract by clicking a button.
A contract must be agreed to, for it to be valid. If you don't agree with the contract included in the box, don't accept its terms. The vendor may ask you to return the product; if it does so, simply refuse. If they want it back, they have to pay for it, like you did.
That's a great idea.. It would be really cool to see an X filesystem (like proc, devfs, etc.) allowing users and scripts to interact at a file level with X. But, of course, I can't code this either.:)
My biggest fear is that the Open Source 'Revolution' will go down in history as the biggest con since Christanity.
Open source is not, and has never been a revolution. Open source development techniques existed long before commercial ones. Indeed, most modern operating systems have their roots in an open source project.
Every day it seems that another Linux-centric organisation gets sued or goes out of business
Name three.
Sure, RMS claims that you can sell support - but if the product is good then any required support will be minimal, or nil. Idealistic
dreaming, or idiocy?
My company's product is good, and it requires a large amount of support. Also, my previous company's product was good. It too required a lot of support. I think your claim that good products require minimal support is false.
I'm astonished that such a (generally) intelligent selection of people as the Slashdot community buy into RMS's rabid bumblings wholesale. I understand
the desire to remain open-minded, to at least consider what he has to say - I'm not suggesting that everything he says is bullshit by any means - but,
please, people WAKE UP!
I was committed to open source development and use and integration of open source products before I even knew who Richard Stallman was.
You are being brainwashed by Stallman, who is (gasp!) the ONLY person who makes money from Free Software. Your figurehead is fleecing you. Every
time you assign copyright to the FSF Stallman's pockets bulge a little more. Every donation buys him more twinkies and tea-bags. Every time you release
your hard work under the GPL parasite you are bringing the GNUworld closer. Every GPL release decreases the 'freedom entropy level'.
I make money as a direct result of the existence of free software. Also, I am payed for writing free software.
I don't care if my contributions to the free software community make Richard Stallman, you, Bill Gates, or Commander Taco more rich. In fact, I hope they do. Consider it a gift, not a tribute.
My hope is that my job, and the jobs of my peers is made easier by my contributions. I hope my code is used to educate people. I hope it's used to entertain people. Kinda like Music, I guess.
Once everything is GPL there can be no going back. RMS knows this, and he knows that in a 'brave GNU world' he would be God!
Meh. Whatever. Whether he's god, I'm god, or you're god, it doesn't make much of a difference to me. What's god anyway?
As long as my code is used and enjoyed, I don't mind submitting it. That's my stance.
All I have to say to you all is NIS, NFS, autofs, bind, apache, IIS, Exchange Server, Black Orifice, samba,
ipfilter, ifconfig opts, mtu, dhcp, bla, bla, fuckin bla.
I don't know why, but when you said this, I had an image of cartman spinning around yelling those words and zapping a poor coder.:)
Actually, if they live on campus, they're on the university's private property, and the university can search their room at will.
If the University has entered into a landlord/tenant agreement with the individual for the exclusive use of said private property, then no, the University cannot search their room at will (regardless of what's written into the contract; although, this varies from state-to-state).
You can if they signed a agreement to. Most/.'ers forget that the dorm agreement does alow the school to come and and take anything out of the room
whenever they wish.
Some states and provinces (in Canada) have non-revokable landlord/tenant rights. These rights cannot be 'signed away' by agreement between the parties. One such right is search & seizure (although I'm not sure if this particular state holds these laws; probably, since they requested a warrant).
Regardless of what is written into a contract, there are states in which entering a tenant's dwelling (dorm, in this case) without permission is both a criminal and civil offense.
Most open source developers would rather not have their code end up in
Windows.
Well, this may be the reality, but I'd like to pretend in my utopian vision of the computing industry that more often then not, BSD code integrated into commercial products makes the world a better place.:)
Most open source developers would rather not have their code end up in
Windows.
If the result of my code ending up in Windows was to make Windows faster, more stable, or safer to use in conjunction with other operating systems, I'm all for it.
Part of my job as a Unix admin/integrator is dealing with Windows, and if I can do something to release fellow admins/integrators from the same hell I go through when one of these things breaks, all the better. I don't want a Windows-free world, I want a world where everything works properly.
Slashdot Mirror
The shame of it all is that in the end, they will bury themselves. The more restrictive the technology they use to distribute their music is, the sooner the public will lose respect for them and their copyright. They will force people like me to use unprotected, unpayed-for MP3s, because while we want to listen to (and pay for) music, we are unwilling to do so on their terms.
I mean really now - when faced with the potential options - purchase (for $20) a SuperDigitalMediaDevice which includes bizarre contracts and anti-copy provisions, or make your own for 1/10th the cost, from high quality, free, unrestricted MP3s, the legality becomes a non-issue (for most people).
And the situation gets worse when they start using proprietary formats that are unsupported in unpopular environments!
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I need music. I want to consume music under the terms granted in copyright law. If the big boys can't follow these terms, then I don't have any choice other than to "steal" the music by downloading MP3 versions of songs I like, with no money going to copyright holders or artists.
I wish there was another way. But, alas, it looks like "theft" may be my only option.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Saving the children! Er.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Here, nations compete head-to-head to impose the most ridiculous pro-censorship/corporate laws on their citizens, without causing a revolt!
And oh! Looks like Australia takes the lead! Yep - the fans are eagerly awaiting the US's response. :)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
This "permission" is and always has been implied when sending email, unless explicitly denied.
In otherwords, if you're sending email which you don't want forwarded (because 99.995% of sent around the world don't carry this bit), it is your responsibility to state so.
This email is confidential/proprietary/personal, and the receiver is not authorized to forward it to any external entity.
There, that was easy - and people have been doing this for years. And note, that you cannot deny forwarding completely, because under fair use rights (in the US & Canada) one has the inherent right to copy for personal use (forwarding to a different account).
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Forget about all that. Let's just use common sense in the courtroom. The question is simple:
Would the reasonable person expect that forwarding the email in question was in breach of copyright? Was the material sensitive (confidential / private)? Was the plaintiff (if it's a civil case) injured/damaged, or likely to be? Did the email represent significant commercial value? Etc.
I propose that permission to forward email is given by default and must be explicitly denied, or be obviously (to the reasonable person) denied (because it fits one of the categories above).
Life is not binary. There is no 1/0, clearcut answer to anything, and laws like this make me livid. As I said earlier, I want everyone who approves of this law as it is (suggested to be) written to spend 5 years in jail, and pay $60k, so they realize how serious these penalties are. Maybe then they would think twice before supporting offensive laws like this.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Sometimes I get the feeling that the "more equal" citizens of the world think they're playing some big real-life game like age of empires (poking a citizen and making them do something) - completely detached from the people they're hurting.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I know they do. That's what I'm complaining about. I think people should stop.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Close, but no cigar. :)
Publically claiming ownership is an attempted act of theft (you have credit, and now I don't). It is successful if people believe you.
Also, MacDonalds Secret Receipe and the formula for Original Coke. Only copies of the formula, of course.
Bingo. While not theft, it still seems kinda unethical (and illegal, of course).
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I do mean it.
Forgive me but you are the biggest self deluded fool on slashdot today.
I wouldn't go that far. ;)
And its not even enough that you are an intellectual fraud, you also appear quite smug about.
Intellectual fraud? I don't understand.
Hey bozo, I compose and write music that you can only enjoy on _my_ fucking terms. Either you get that through your puny little head or you stew while the world passes you right the fuck by for being the sanctimonious, disingenuous twit that you are.
Well that one came right outta left field.
What did I say in my previous post that suggested to you that I don't believe in information trade? I mean really now. My post was about the abuse of the English words theft and stolen - and for good reason - because it belittles victims of real theft, and because it is misleading (it confuses the concept of moving an object with the concept of cloning an object).
You are entitled to NOTHING I create. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nothing unless its on my fucking terms.
And you to nothing I create, and license under a restrictive covenant. I am profitting tremendously because of the intellectual property laws of Canada. I don't want to see them scrapped, because if they were, I might become poor.. and that would suck.
Try re-reading my post, but instead of interpolating "intellectual property sucks," read it for what it says - that copying data is not theft.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Dear god, make the hurting stop.
I'm sorry you're the one to bear the brunt of my frustration, but I am just so sick of hearing this garbage regurgitated again and again.
When you pick apple off a tree, what do you call it? If someone looks at you, and says, "hey, what is that," do you reply "this is an apple," or "this is an orange?"
Most rational people would reply "this is an apple." It's important to keep our apples together, and our oranges together - and the two separate - when dealing with things. In this way, we can think logically and coherently, without confusing ourselves or each other.
Here's a good one. When you right-click-drag an icon in Windows (I'm sure you've used Windows before), and you get that little menu (you know, the one that says copy, move, cancel, etc.), do you know why they differentiate between copy and move? They do so, because copy and move are different operations. One copies, the other moves.
Queue the music.
When you steal, you move an object.
When you copy, you copy an object.
Data cannot be stolen. The best we can do, is equate "stealing of data" with a copy and erase (that is, you copy the source, and then erase it). Thankfully, computers are very good at copying data, without erasing it (at least, from a user's perspective).
Here's a good one.. would you prefer that I steal your computer's hard disk, or image it? Don't say neither. That's not the point. If I were to do it, which would you prefer? Should I image that cd, or image it, then destroy it? In order to think clearly about the subject, we must differentiate between copying, and stealing.
And please - don't give me any of this horseshit about lost revenue. It is not an absolute. If it were, it would be solid basis for a copy == theft equation. But since copying data does not always result in lost revenue (for example, when a person copies data with no intent or ability to pay for it otherwise), it is a poor argument.
Copying data (for personal or commercial gain, or not) may be unethical and/or illegal, for the love of humanity, IT IS NOT THEFT. Say it a hundred times.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
A piece of paper inside a toaster box isn't a license, or contract. It's just a factually incorrect statement. Presumably, the arguement behind EULAs holds because the user "signs" the contract by clicking a button.
A contract must be agreed to, for it to be valid. If you don't agree with the contract included in the box, don't accept its terms. The vendor may ask you to return the product; if it does so, simply refuse. If they want it back, they have to pay for it, like you did.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Agreed. When the hell did the other half of the country become irrelevant?
--
All men are great
before declaring war
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Let them. Their competition (read: cable, wireless, satellite) will move in take their business away from them. It's really that simple.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Open source is not, and has never been a revolution. Open source development techniques existed long before commercial ones. Indeed, most modern operating systems have their roots in an open source project.
Every day it seems that another Linux-centric organisation gets sued or goes out of business
Name three.
Sure, RMS claims that you can sell support - but if the product is good then any required support will be minimal, or nil. Idealistic dreaming, or idiocy?
My company's product is good, and it requires a large amount of support. Also, my previous company's product was good. It too required a lot of support. I think your claim that good products require minimal support is false.
I'm astonished that such a (generally) intelligent selection of people as the Slashdot community buy into RMS's rabid bumblings wholesale. I understand the desire to remain open-minded, to at least consider what he has to say - I'm not suggesting that everything he says is bullshit by any means - but, please, people WAKE UP!
I was committed to open source development and use and integration of open source products before I even knew who Richard Stallman was.
You are being brainwashed by Stallman, who is (gasp!) the ONLY person who makes money from Free Software. Your figurehead is fleecing you. Every time you assign copyright to the FSF Stallman's pockets bulge a little more. Every donation buys him more twinkies and tea-bags. Every time you release your hard work under the GPL parasite you are bringing the GNUworld closer. Every GPL release decreases the 'freedom entropy level'.
I make money as a direct result of the existence of free software. Also, I am payed for writing free software.
I don't care if my contributions to the free software community make Richard Stallman, you, Bill Gates, or Commander Taco more rich. In fact, I hope they do. Consider it a gift, not a tribute.
My hope is that my job, and the jobs of my peers is made easier by my contributions. I hope my code is used to educate people. I hope it's used to entertain people. Kinda like Music, I guess.
Once everything is GPL there can be no going back. RMS knows this, and he knows that in a 'brave GNU world' he would be God!
Meh. Whatever. Whether he's god, I'm god, or you're god, it doesn't make much of a difference to me. What's god anyway?
As long as my code is used and enjoyed, I don't mind submitting it. That's my stance.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
I don't know why, but when you said this, I had an image of cartman spinning around yelling those words and zapping a poor coder. :)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
An Enterprise 250 w/2x440mhz CPUs w/512mb ram goes for under $25k USD.
You're not helping yourself.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
If the University has entered into a landlord/tenant agreement with the individual for the exclusive use of said private property, then no, the University cannot search their room at will (regardless of what's written into the contract; although, this varies from state-to-state).
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Some states and provinces (in Canada) have non-revokable landlord/tenant rights. These rights cannot be 'signed away' by agreement between the parties. One such right is search & seizure (although I'm not sure if this particular state holds these laws; probably, since they requested a warrant).
Regardless of what is written into a contract, there are states in which entering a tenant's dwelling (dorm, in this case) without permission is both a criminal and civil offense.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
Well, this may be the reality, but I'd like to pretend in my utopian vision of the computing industry that more often then not, BSD code integrated into commercial products makes the world a better place. :)
--
All men are great
before declaring war
If the result of my code ending up in Windows was to make Windows faster, more stable, or safer to use in conjunction with other operating systems, I'm all for it.
Part of my job as a Unix admin/integrator is dealing with Windows, and if I can do something to release fellow admins/integrators from the same hell I go through when one of these things breaks, all the better. I don't want a Windows-free world, I want a world where everything works properly.
--
All men are great
before declaring war