I'm annoyed by spam as much as the next person, but am I the only one who thinks a maximum of 11 years is overkill for a "crime" of this type?
The worst effect his actions could have on an individual person is the inconvenience of pressing the delete key a few more times. It's not like he's committed a violent crime or put people out of work.
Yes, it's an abuse of resources, and it costs ISPs money to combat spam. But wouldn't a far more appropriate response be to seize his assets and slap him with fines amounting to the damage he's caused?
Which definition do you believe copyright infringement fits?
"Copying" does not involve a crime of "stealing", you're not "taking" something without intending to return it. In the act of copying, the "original" stays in the hands of its owner. These definitions of theft don't fit.
"Copying" may be argued to be more like stealing "a look at my watch". But this is not a "crime".
People don't view copying as theft, because it is not theft. It's copyright violation. Copyrights are an artificial means of protecting ideas.
If I liked a shirt you're wearing, and made an exact copy of it for myself, you wouldn't accuse me of stealing your shirt. You still have it.
The reason why this is such a problem in the digital realm is that the costs of copying (manufacturing) bits is practically free.
What will happen when the cost of copying physically stuff is just as easy? Will companies be be crying for piracy laws to prevent me from making a backup of my favorite coffee mug, in case I break it?
There should be an OSS-style license agreement for websites connecting to the public Internet. The whole point of the Web is to hyperlink to offsite documents. No company should be allowed to make such restrictions.
Maybe IBM has decided to exit the laptop market, like they are doing in the hard drive market. My guess is that the first thing they would cut is development for future products.
I saw a demonstration of a 1024x768 projector in September. The quality was impressive...impressive for video. There are many companies in the industry committed to switching to digital production and exhibition. But they are not taking this likely. There was much discussion that there will have to be a "noticable improvement" in quality over current film standards. At the demonstration, the audience's opinion was polarized. While there were many WOW's in the audience...those with a critical eye noticed the pixelation and contrast differences from film. I found myself overly downplaying the quality in reaction to the blind enthusiasts. I suspect that Ebert is taking the same position. New digital projection technology IS impressive, but it is a few years away from being of the quality to replace film. By the way, for those who are unimpressed with the monitor like resolutions, it makes a HUGE difference when this resolution is being presented as a moving picture. After all, 35mm projection uses HALF the area that 35mm stills do. It's the moving picture that adds the perception of greater clarity. The same rule applies for video.
Addiction has nothing to do with the number of hours you spend doing something. An addiction can only be called as such if a habit creates a negative impact on the rest of your life, and you still keep doing it and can't give it up.
The text of the study wasn't included in the article, so it is unclear what sort of claims are being made here.
I saw Phantom Menace on Wednesday and thought it was excellent. I had the same feeling walking out of the movie that I had coming out of the other Star Wars movies. I thought it was consistent story-wise...Lucus did a really nice job. I really thought the special effects were rarely distracting and were simply a vehicle to tell the story. A few points, without any spoilers:
- I think ILM has mastered doing ship effects and other "solid objects". Really done well. - Phantom Menace has a lot of humor in it. It was rather lighthearted, but you will see the groundwork is being layed for darker themes. - The acting is great! - Jar-Jar wasn't quite what I expected. I think he's there for the kids. Not as annoying as some have predicted. He made me laugh a number of times. - Anakin was more endearing than I expected.
One last point. I saw this movie with about 500 people. I didn't hear anyone say they hated...or even disliked the movie. Lots of people were critical though. My favorite was "well...I don't think this was the best movie EVER."
If you need to criticize it on that level, I'd love to see your next movie. May the Force be with you.
A better comparison would be MP3 and vinyl. MP3 has nothing to do with style or content. I don't think this guy's comments could be any further off track. File formats are more affected by technological trends than business or artistic trends. Look at the GIF format...Compuserve tried to control it for a while. It stuck around until something technologically "better" for the application came around...the jpeg format.
Furthermore, MP3 is not a copywritten format (right?)...unlike Adobe PDF's. There are many different encoders that can generate the same type of files.
MP3 have a really strong foothold in the community, and any attempt to shake it results in strong user opposition. I don't think MP3's will lose ground until something substantially better comes along.
Slashdot Mirror
1,277,000 addresses
1 second per email
@ 60 emails per minute
= 21283 minutes
=354 hours of pressing delete=
Or 8.87 40-hour work weeks
I'm annoyed by spam as much as the next person, but am I the only one who thinks a maximum of 11 years is overkill for a "crime" of this type?
The worst effect his actions could have on an individual person is the inconvenience of pressing the delete key a few more times. It's not like he's committed a violent crime or put people out of work.
Yes, it's an abuse of resources, and it costs ISPs money to combat spam. But wouldn't a far more appropriate response be to seize his assets and slap him with fines amounting to the damage he's caused?
Or have I missed something here?
"Two humans for any movie, please!"
Which definition do you believe copyright infringement fits?
"Copying" does not involve a crime of "stealing", you're not "taking" something without intending to return it. In the act of copying, the "original" stays in the hands of its owner. These definitions of theft don't fit.
"Copying" may be argued to be more like stealing "a look at my watch". But this is not a "crime".
What are you trying to say by this example?
People don't view copying as theft, because it is not theft. It's copyright violation. Copyrights are an artificial means of protecting ideas.
If I liked a shirt you're wearing, and made an exact copy of it for myself, you wouldn't accuse me of stealing your shirt. You still have it.
The reason why this is such a problem in the digital realm is that the costs of copying (manufacturing) bits is practically free.
What will happen when the cost of copying physically stuff is just as easy? Will companies be be crying for piracy laws to prevent me from making a backup of my favorite coffee mug, in case I break it?
> First, Orbitz should be allowed to do whatever they want. This includes prohibiting deep linking.
This would be like joining a poker game, then requiring that the dealer ask your permission every time she deals you a card.
There should be an OSS-style license agreement for websites connecting to the public Internet. The whole point of the Web is to hyperlink to offsite documents. No company should be allowed to make such restrictions.
Maybe IBM has decided to exit the laptop market, like they are doing in the hard drive market. My guess is that the first thing they would cut is development for future products.
Mark
I saw a demonstration of a 1024x768 projector in September. The quality was impressive...impressive for video. There are many companies in the industry committed to switching to digital production and exhibition. But they are not taking this likely. There was much discussion that there will have to be a "noticable improvement" in quality over current film standards. At the demonstration, the audience's opinion was polarized. While there were many WOW's in the audience...those with a critical eye noticed the pixelation and contrast differences from film. I found myself overly downplaying the quality in reaction to the blind enthusiasts. I suspect that Ebert is taking the same position. New digital projection technology IS impressive, but it is a few years away from being of the quality to replace film. By the way, for those who are unimpressed with the monitor like resolutions, it makes a HUGE difference when this resolution is being presented as a moving picture. After all, 35mm projection uses HALF the area that 35mm stills do. It's the moving picture that adds the perception of greater clarity. The same rule applies for video.
Addiction has nothing to do with the number of hours you spend doing something. An addiction can only be called as such if a habit creates a negative impact on the rest of your life, and you still keep doing it and can't give it up.
The text of the study wasn't included in the article, so it is unclear what sort of claims are being made here.
I saw Phantom Menace on Wednesday and thought it was excellent. I had the same feeling walking out of the movie that I had coming out of the other Star Wars movies. I thought it was consistent story-wise...Lucus did a really nice job. I really thought the special effects were rarely distracting and were simply a vehicle to tell the story. A few points, without any spoilers:
- I think ILM has mastered doing ship effects and other "solid objects". Really done well.
- Phantom Menace has a lot of humor in it. It was rather lighthearted, but you will see the groundwork is being layed for darker themes.
- The acting is great!
- Jar-Jar wasn't quite what I expected. I think he's there for the kids. Not as annoying as some have predicted. He made me laugh a number of times.
- Anakin was more endearing than I expected.
One last point. I saw this movie with about 500 people. I didn't hear anyone say they hated...or even disliked the movie. Lots of people were critical though. My favorite was "well...I don't think this was the best movie EVER."
If you need to criticize it on that level, I'd love to see your next movie. May the Force be with you.
A better comparison would be MP3 and vinyl. MP3 has nothing to do with style or content. I don't think this guy's comments could be any further off track. File formats are more affected by technological trends than business or artistic trends. Look at the GIF format...Compuserve tried to control it for a while. It stuck around until something technologically "better" for the application came around...the jpeg format.
Furthermore, MP3 is not a copywritten format (right?)...unlike Adobe PDF's. There are many different encoders that can generate the same type of files.
MP3 have a really strong foothold in the community, and any attempt to shake it results in strong user opposition. I don't think MP3's will lose ground until something substantially better comes along.