In many cases the music label will prevent a station from playing a song on an already released CD if they plan on releasing a single or music video.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Labels do not have any influence on the ability of radio stations playing any damn track they please. They can choose not to provide full CDs, they can send 20 copies of the single they want played, but they cannot stop a radio station from playing music that's been released. If a station wants to play a song that's available on CD, all they have to do is pick it up. True - many stations stick to the singles because that's what the consultants and reps say they should play, but it's not because they "aren't allowed." Sorry, I don't know where you got this idea, but you're wrong.
It's true that payola probably still goes on with big labels and conglomerates like ClearChannel so that the big singles get played and the other tracks don't - but it's not above-board, and the only thing they can do if stations choose to play a different song is to stop giving them perks. And it's a two-way street here - if ClearChannel decides that they don't like Sony, they can drop all their artists from the playlists and Sony can watch their sales go bye-bye.
Let's face it, the overwhelming evidence is that Napster didn't hurt the sales of CDs overall.
Certainly there were cheapskates and penny-pinchers determined to suck down all the music for free without spending a cent on CDs, but the overwhelming evidence shows that most people found music they liked on Napster and then decided to buy some of it. Guess what? The ones who used Napster primarily as a way to avoid paying for music were usually too damn cheap (or broke, or both) to spend money on CDs anyway. The music industry has lost nothing on those people. (As much as the RIAA would like you to believe that an individual listening to an "illegal" copy costs them money, it just isn't so - unless they stole the CD from the store.)
For people who, for whatever reason, spend a lot of time at the computer but little time listening to radio or whatever this was a good way to expose them to music that they might want to buy. (And how convenient - download a song you like through Napster, then click on Second Spin or CDNow.com and buy the album so you can listen to it in the car.
Frankly, I'm not upset that Napster's gone - it's caused a lot of people to stop looking for mainstream music on Napster and to look on MP3.com and other sources for independent music. My music purchases will be 80% to 90% independent in the future. There are a few groups I like that are still on major labels, like XTC and Robyn Hitchcock... but otherwise, I'd rather spend my money with the little guy who isn't sticking it to me.
hoping the DJ wouldn't come on early before the song ended.
It's called "ramping" - and it's one of my biggest pet peeves. I used to work in radio and I refused to do it - people tune in to hear music, not some asshole talking over "Shine on Crazy Diamond." Many DJs, however, are so in love with the sound of their own voice that they think it sounds "cool." Let's start a movement - next time you hear a DJ "ramp" your favorite song, call the station and raise hell. Maybe within five years we can wipe the practice out. I've never met a non-DJ that thought it was enjoyable, but it goes on because people don't complain. People in the "industry" think it's a Good Thing.
I'd add "exclusively" to that... lots of artists, including Pink Floyd, The Beatles and countless other groups and musicians have certainly pursued money as a goal... but likely as not, The Beatles would have kept making music even if they hadn't become famous. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living at your art - it's the people who go after money first and foremost that are often bereft of talent as well.
John Lennon (I believe) was once heard to say "well, time to write a swimming pool" or something to that effect. In other words, "well, this single will put a pool in my backyard" -- at a minimum. But, that was (IMHO) more likely a comment marvelling at the ability to make a bucket of cash from his work - which he would have wanted to do anyway. If anything, The Beatles were after the girls more than the money...
This is a very common trap in the legislation business - propose a horrific piece of crap like the CBDTPA, claiming that there is a "need" for such legislation. Then the really bad bill gets shot down, but since legislators have convinced people that "something has to be done" a slightly less odious - but still objectionable - bill gets passed.
What legislation like the CBDTPA would I accept? None. Absolutely none at all. Let the content providers take the risks of doing business just like everyone else. If they can't accept the risks, then move aside for businesses that will. That's capitalism.
Either one is harmful when it is used in the other's role.
I find it hard to swallow that Open Source/Free Software is harmful in any role so long as it meets the need of the users.
The previous argument, the one I was responding to, was basically saying that Open Source is always bad because it might put a commercial software company out of business. I strongly disagree with that assessment for the reasons I outlined.
I don't really agree with the idea that "boring" software is going to go undeveloped - but if it does, then yes - commercial development can fill those needs. For example, I know of a GPL'ed program that's floating around that is explicitly for managing vet offices. It's my understanding that companies that sell medical equipment also create the software that goes with the equipment, so something that specific is unlikely to benefit the vast community of people using PCs and servers - I don't need to run a blood-gas package on my PC, for example.
Internally-developed software has come a long way since the "bad old days" and internally-developed, or at least internally-tweaked, software has a big place in business today.
Some startups may need very specific "boring" software that is not freely available or likely to become freely available given the whims an desires of the community of developers. In those instances, commercial companies could flourish by producing those specific packages without imposing proprietary OSes, databases, compilers and such on the vast majority of users. However, even the commercial companies who develop very "boring" software will benefit from the availability of free compilers, toolkits and OSes.
I never said that software "must" be given away for free - merely that free software benefits a far greater percentage of the population than proprietary software.
More revenues and profit for software companies leads to:
Fewer jobs at the companies that have to pay for software licenses. Smaller profit margins for companies that have to pay for software licenses. Fewer new companies being created due to the higher startup costs of buying software licenses.
Free Software and Open Source leads to: More jobs for engineers at companies who need people to modify freely available software. Higher profit margins for companies not paying insane license fees to Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. Startup companies being able to spend money on their business rather than software licenses. Adding features to software because they're necessary, not because marketing wants another bullet on the box. Software being released/deployed when it's ready, not when a company needs to generate revenue. A less jarring upgrade cycle for companies that actually use the software. Not being left with your dick in your hand when the company that makes your proprietary accounting package goes out of business without passing on the source code or any means of future support and leaving your data in a proprietary and inaccesible format. No BSA. No companies paying off their congresscritter to pass the DCMA.
Bottom line - proprietary software hurts a lot more companies than it helps.
If you want to work for Microsoft, Free Software might be a bad thing. If you want to do real and useful work with a tool that works well it's a very good thing.
Never forget that Microsoft Office, Windows, Visual Studio and so on are designed primarily with one goal in mind: maximizing Microsoft's profit margin. That goal directly conflicts with the goal of a company that uses those tools - namely, to spend as little as possible to get the job done well. The same is true of just about any proprietary software package - the number one goal of Adobe, Macromedia, Quark and every other proprietary company is to sell more licenses. That means that their goal is to cause their customers to buy more software, more rapidly, than they would want to. Spending more IT budget on licensing than personnel - meaning, in reality, fewer jobs. If every company had one or two people supporting Linux and OpenOffice, say, there'd be a hell of a lot more jobs than are created than the 10,000 or so created by Microsoft.
I mean, do you all want to work as sysadmins on Linux and databaseadmins on MySQL instead of software engineers & technical managers on projects that aim to sell the software you have created?
Yes. Working on a team with the goal of selling software means having to work closely with marketing and salescritters. That's punishment enough for anyone.
You could say that in the strictest possible sense that it is immoral, but that's assuming that people actually worry about morals. We live in a society where people take pride in finding ways around legitimately paying for things and services. For example, it's not uncommon to hear people bragging about how they buy something, use it once or twice, and then return it for a refund. Is that moral? I'd say no. But then, who's to say what's moral and what's not? I mean, ask Bill Gates if it's morally correct to go against the terms of a software license and he'd say "no" - and so would RMS, though they'd disagree what a license should be. Ask your average 17-year-old, you'll get a different answer. Ask your average parent, and you'll get a different answer.
And, as you touch on in the above post, many people see copying software as a kind of civil disobedience.
Let's turn the question around for a second - is it moral for Microsoft to charge what it does for software? Knowing that if they charged a much lower price a lot of people wouldn't illegally copy their software, but they might not make the same profit margins - but by demanding insanely high profit margins they either force people to do without or copy illegally. I mean, Bill Gates and Hillary Rosen like to talk about the immorality of copying that which we haven't bought - but what about the morality of gouging your customers and the people that work for you? I mean, the RIAA isn't looking to quash copying for the benefit of mankind or their artists, they're trying to protect their business model and jacked-up prices on CDs. Is that moral? $400 for Office is not insignificant - that's more than some people make in a week or two weeks, and it comes with no real warranty or guarantee. If you buy a $1000 new computer you have some guarantee that it will work for a period of time or it will be replaced, if it doesn't work the way you expect it to you get to return it after a certain period - you have no real right to any such expectations with software. Is that a moral way to treat customers? I don't think so.
Maybe morality doesn't even enter into it. Software copying does not hurt anyone directly. It can be argued that it hurts developers and companies indirectly, but it's not the same as stealing physical goods. If I copy Office from a CD that you bought - they've been paid once for that media and manual (if any) so their production costs are covered. If I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, what have they really lost? Don't give me this "lost revenue" argument - a lot of people who copy software could not or would not pay the price in the first place - so what is really lost?
If we want to worry about the morality of indirect effects, then anyone who purchases Nike goods is guilty of supporting child labor and abuse. If you purchase goods manufactured in Mexico or China (for example) you're putting people in the US out of work and supporting companies that are looking to skirt labor laws and wage requirements to make a bigger profit. Is that moral?
I'm not saying that it's right to copy proprietary software, but I'm not quite ready to condemn it as immoral either - and I'm not quite sure that the software companies can claim the high moral ground on this issue either.
While I agree that software developers have a right to set licensing terms (sale, GPL, BSD, whatever) and require payment if that's their desire it is hard for people to agree that copying bits is the same thing as stealing physical property.
For example, if I break into your house and steal your stereo you no longer have a stereo. If I steal your wallet, your money is gone. If I copy Microsoft Office, Microsoft "loses" a licensing fee that they might or might not have received in the first place. If you ask 20 people if it's wrong to steal a boxed copy of Office from CompUSA it's quite likely that 19 or 20 of those people will say yes. If you ask 20 people if it's wrong to copy Office from their friend who bought it at CompUSA, I'd be willing to bet 15 to 20 of them will say "no" or "kind of, but it's too expensive to buy."
While I agree it's wrong, I don't really place it in the same category as stealing. I think that software companies will continue to have a hard time being taken seriously on this concept until they come up with a less dramatic and more accurate term. It is not "stealing" or "piracy" it's "unauthorized use" - which is still wrong, but doesn't have the dramatic effect that the BSA would like to promote. They want us to believe that anyone who has ever copied software is the moral equivalent of pickpocket, and I don't think they're going to have much success there.
Also, think about this - people will never feel guilty about ripping off Microsoft or Adobe when they perceive such contempt from these companies for their patronage. When Microsoft, Adobe or other software companies treat their customers like customers instead of potential thieves and "consumers" to have punative and restrictive licensing schemes forced down their throats, they might find people less likely to violate their licensing and be willing to pay for the software. When they charge reasonable prices for software, then people will be likely to just pay it. $400 or whatever for M$ Office is not a reasonable fee. $600 for Adobe Illustrator is not a reasonable fee. Not for the average person. You buy three "professional" packages for your computer and you've already paid more for software than you paid for the computer it runs on - and asking for people to pay more money for an intangible thing than for the tangible thing they run it on is never going to fly.
I think it will take more than one album. We're talking a start-up cost of at least $200-$300 just to listen to one album. You'd have to have an album of all-new material by the Beatles, all four of them, before I'd think about laying down that kind of cash.
I really don't see how that addresses what I was saying. You can do the same thing with any merchant who is willing to ring up a "sale" for cash instead of ringing it up as a cash advance. If you've got a friend who owns a small store, you can do the same thing. (Less common, true, but it's not unheard-of.) Also, while I was in college it was a common thing for someone to pay for dinner/groceries/movies or whatever for a group of people and then get the cash so they'd have cash. Same effect, totally legit. (Note that I've never heard of finding an end-run around the cash advance to be "illegal") So, this isn't exclusive to Paypal, not by a long chalk.
However, PayPal is aggressively and deceptively trying to switch people from paying via credit cards to paying via checking accounts. They'll tell you they need a bank account number to "verify" your identity and such - as if a credit card doesn't to this - and then switch your account to default to your bank account rather than credit card. Why? Because they don't have the same interest rates for money transfers from banks.
All in all, I find it hard to get weepy for the prospect of PayPal being shut out of business with Mastercard or being put out of business altogether. Mastercard isn't much better, but at least they're regulated and you have a lot better resolution process with a bank that issues a MasterCard than you do with PayPal - just try to get in touch directly and quickly with a human being there. It's form-letter hell all the way.
I think they're retaliating over PayPal's trying to cut credit cards out of the online transaction loop. PayPal is pursuing some aggressive tactics, and dishonest IMHO, to get people to use their bank accounts rather than credit cards because of the interest. The thing is, PayPal is really a middleman looking for a piece of the credit card companies and merchant's action.
I don't care much for MasterCard or PayPal, but there are probably legitimate and not-so-legitimate reasons that MasterCard is taking this step.
Well, yes. Seriously - a lot of Slashdotters use Windows, a lot use Linux, a fair percentage use *BSD, a not insignificant number use MacOS, and there are smatterings of BeOS, OS/2, Solaris and even Amiga fanatics. While it's not wholly unreasonable to think that the poster meant Linux, I think it's churlish to make that as an assumption and proceed to berate the poster on that basis.
Again, the XBox runs some kind of stripped down Windows, I think, but they could have meant "if XBox ran a real version of Windows" as well as "if XBox ran Linux." In fact, since the PS2 runs Linux, it's not unreasonable to wonder why the XBox can't/won't run Windows. Since virtually all the parts in the XBox are similar to PC hardware, Microsoft could produce a fuller version of Windows to run on it if they wanted to.
While many people equate "real OS" with Linux, nowhere in the post does it mention Linux.
He could have been referring to any OS, so why did you assume that he meant Linux?
Oh - in reference to your sig - Konqueror isn't, AFAIK, 100% necessary for KDE, and I believe it (KDE) can be compiled without it. It's included for convenience sake by most Linux distributions - but it's not required for other KDE apps to function and can be left out. Linux users also have choice of desktops, so they can choose to use KDE or GNOME or XFce or fvwm or twm or IceWM or Enlightenment... Any OEM manufacturer who makes Linux boxen is absolutely 100% free to leave KDE or Konqueror off a machine, no one is abusing a monopoly to require its inclusion, so your pathetic little analogy doesn't hold up.
The point im trying to get accross is, you cant say "this person is sick" or "this person is evil" just because they have strange fantasies
First, yes I can say that someone who wants to have sex with kids (even if they don't do it) is sick. There are a number of sexual fetishes that are certainly not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't call them sick - but for someone to desire to have sex with children? Yes, that's sick. End of story. It is considered a psychological disorder.
Evil is another story. No, I don't consider someone evil if they have fantasies about children, so long as they don't follow through on them. Evil is when they do.
By the way, you don't know what you're talking about - I can very well say that someone is a pedophile without their having abused a child. A pedophile is, by definition, someone who prefers children as sexual objects - that doesn't mean that they've actually had sex with a child or even bought child porn - just that they have a strong sexual desire for children. Look it up.
It's impossible to have a law that leaves the age of consent up to individual interpretation - therefore, we've set the arbitrary age of consent at a high age to protect "children" as long as possible.
I don't know how old you are, but I get the impression you're probably not past 25. You'd be surprised how young and immature someone at 18 seems to be. (I say "seems" because I fully recognize the bias inherent with age. When you're 18, a 10-year-old usually seems unbelievably naive - when you're 30, an 18-year-old seems just as naive. If you asked a group of 80-year-olds, they'd probably say that 18 is young for consent...)
Of course people don't magically mature at 18, some mature earlier, some mature later, some never do. You may not be surprised to know that the "meme" of protecting people under the age of 18 is very new, historically speaking. The idea that children should be protected from certain realities would be novel to someone in 1600.
I can't agree that the current laws on staturoy rape are wrong - though they might use improvement, I think there should be laws that protect 17-year-old girls (and younger) from older men. If that means that an 18-year-old dating a 16-year-old has to keep it in his pants for two years, so be it. No system of laws can possibly account for all possible scenarios, at some point they have to be arbitrary and sometimes even unfair to protect the most people in the most possible situations.
However nothing is wrong with virtual child porn or any other form of expression as long as no one is harmed
Well, it's certainly "wrong" as in "man, that is soooo wrong," but I agree that no form of speech or artwork - in and of itself - harms others.
I don't really agree that it (virtual child porn) protects children, but it doesn't exploit them either. I think this law was really an excuse to persecute anyone who would even discuss or think about children sexually. It's a very seductive line of thinking for the majority of people in the country who are horrified (including myself) by people who are sexually excited by children.
It's their code, they can licence it however they damn well please.
Yes, but what gives them the right to extend their license to other code? The GPL requires that you feed back any changes, etc. They're trying to say, in essence, "if you use our products, you can't use them with other products that aren't licensed to our satisfaction." If this is acceptible, what's to stop them from banning any third-party software whatsoever in the future?
Where's the freedom in being severely restricted with what you can do with software that you've paid for, or being bullied by a mega-corporation?
Otherwise, you have no right to expect anyone to respect licences like the GPL.
The GPL doesn't extend to other software - you can run GPL'ed software on Windows, no one complains. You can run proprietary software on top of GPL'ed software - even though the developers might prefer otherwise, it's allowed.
The bottom line is that Microsoft obviously feels that they can't compete on the merits of their products alone - even with a dominant market share and a marketing and R&D budget that dwarfs any of their competitors.
If this were in any business other than software - ie, one that the majority of people in the country actually feel competent - it would never work.
If Amazon gets more successful at this, we may have only a few copies flying around the country as people resell books.
I doubt that this is likely. The greater the demand for a book, it will inevitably require more and more new copies. Also, the nightmare scenarios that the book industry (and recording, and movie) likes to paint are highly unlikely.
1. Many people shop on Amazon -- but many do not. Barnes & Noble, Tattered Cover and other bookstores are unlikely to start selling used books alongside new ones.
2. If a used copy is unavailable, people will usually go ahead and purchase new.
3. Part of the renewed bargain hunting is a result of inflated publisher prices - I've noted that the cost of a hardback is now about $30 - up from $24 or so just a few years ago, and up from $15 or so about a decade ago. The price of books is far outstripping the rate of inflation. The publishers need look no farther than their own practices to find the reason that people are seeking bargains.
4. Human nature - Many bibliophiles would not be willing to sell a book even after finishing it. Some people resell books, but many do not. I'm guessing it's in the 50%-75% range that keep their books, maybe higher. I tend to pass on books if anything, rather than reselling (with the exception of college textbooks - It was either resell 'em or eat Ramen even MORE often...I couldn't do it...).
I buy reference books and fiction that I "must" have new, but the bulk of my book purchases are used books. I can't see paying $12-$30 for a novel.
I'm also an author, and I'm infinitely prefer that everyone purchase new copies of my books
I don't see what would get a real vim user to use kvim rather than just vim in konsole.
I probably wouldn't use kvim instead of vim for writing or whatnot - but they mention embedding it in other KDE apps, which might be very attractive if you happen to like using KMail or another KDE application. I've been using vim so long that the keystrokes are now force of habit - using any other editor is painful.
I wonder how many people already use GVim instead of Vim? It's not for me, but I'm still glad that they're available for the folks who are new to *nix and who aren't comfortable starting out with Vim without pretty icons and menus.
When the same document is required for things unrelated to driving, such as banking, buying alcohol, getting a telephone, etc then things start to smell bad.
None of the things you mention are government requirements -- individual companies have decided that driver's licenses are a reasonable method of ensuring that you are who you say you are. Granted, my driving ability has nothing to do with my ability to pay my phone bill -- but this isn't a nefarious plot, nor is it indicative of a police state. Again, being asked to show a driver's license isn't the same as requiring papers to travel freely or whatever.
You can get a ID card that is not a driver's license that banks, telephone companies and such will accept as proof of your identity. They'll accept military ID cards, or state ID cards. If you have an issue with needing an ID to get a bank account, take it up with the bank - it's not a government requirement.
You don't need a driver's license to go from Iowa to Indiana (well, unless you drive...), you don't need a driver's license to collect social security or to own property or vote. You may need picture ID, but it doesn't have to be a driver's license - I think it varies state to state. And yes, in some (if not all) states you can register to vote at the same time you register for a driver's license but it's not a requirement. You don't even need a driver's license to go to foreign countries or to return - that's what passports are for. Why they're not requiring biometric data for that is beyond me.
If people don't like giving biometric information to get a driver's license - then they should protest that. But most people will turn a deaf ear when the only argument you can offer against it is slippery-slope paranoid police state scenario. Why not make a lucid argument against it based on real objections? It appears to be an invasion of privacy, no further argument is necessary. Invasion of privacy is bad enough. If people deem that biometric information is an acceptible thing for the government to collect, then I guess that it's something people will have to live with.
Look there are two issues that you raise - one of which has nothing to do with the debate about the use of licenses as ID. I agree that if I bought a "lifetime license" and had it revoked later I'd be pissed. I think anyone would. I also think the idea of "lifetime licenses" is pretty bad - after a certain age, some people just shouldn't be driving. But that's another issue.
The second, more germane to this topic -- that asking a motorist to present a license being a presumption of guilt is a bit of a stretch.
Stopping a motorist and searching their car without probable cause - yes, that would be alarming. Asking to see registration? Sorry, I don't see that as a huge infringement on civil liberties. Now - if the cops are stopping you ever ten feet, that's harrassment - but if you're speeding or whatever and a cop asks you to present a license, that's hardly an abuse of your civil liberties.
If cops are stopping people just to show their license -- regardless of whether they've committed any other moving violations -- then that might be an issue. They sometimes do this, but it's rare and usually only when they're looking for something. (At least in the US.) But cops in the US ask to see a license when they pull you over for speeding or whatever - this isn't just to see if you have one, it's so they can run a check on your license and so they can write the license number down on the ticket.
This is different from the nightmare scenario that the original poster was trying to raise - namely a police state where people are required to present "papers" (ie, permission) to travel from point A to point B. The idea that you might be restricted from travelling from town to town without express permission. This is the "slippery slope" scenario that the original poster is asking us to consider. I reject that driver's licenses are going to lead to this scenario, even by subtle degrees. Yes, our children may someday be giving retina scans to receive a license - that doesn't mean that it's a nefarious scheme to restrict civil liberties. It means that we depend on driver's licenses to serve as a de facto ID, and that we want these de facto IDs to be as accurate as humanly possible. Should driver's licenses be the prime means of proving that you're who you say you are? Well, maybe not -- but if people object to connecting the two concepts (driving and identification) then they need to raise that issue - not this shadowy spectre of a iron-fisted police state. I personally do not object to the concept of requiring a test to prove that an individual is likely to operate a vehicle safely. I also don't have a problem with the concept of requiring them to carry proof of having passed this test. I also don't have an objection to a ID card that is used to verify that I'm who I say I am. The two are tied out of convenience, and that may be problematic but it's also deeply entrenched in our culture and institutions.
The idea that you might be asked to show ID is not indicative of oppression or a police state. And, for just a second, try to think about the guy on the other side of this equation - namely, the cop. This is a person that we're asking to protect the general populace from murderers, thieves, rapists and so forth. They have to have some method of ID'ing people, and of running at least a cursory check on people who might be a murder suspect or whatever. Should they have unlimited power? Of course not. But if we tie their hands too tightly, we effectively remove their ability to arrest people who we rightly want behind bars.
Let's also remember that, in the US at least, driver's licenses are also used to verify that we are who we say we are for the purpose of cashing checks, using credit cards and other transactions. It's in our best interest to depend on a form of ID that is hard to forge and that defeats impersonation -- so if you lose your wallet or have it stolen someone with drastically different facial features or whatever is going to have a hard time using your credit card.
I have trouble thinking of a scenario in which an innocent person is going to be put in harm's way by having biometric information in a database. Do I like the idea of losing a bit of privacy? No, but I'm having a tough time thinking of a good solid argument against it that isn't based on a slippery slope argument or the idea that it just makes people uneasy.
Well, that's really the question. Of course the answer varies from person to person, but as a society we have to settle on something that protects the interests of the greatest number of people without crippling the government's ability to do the things that we ask of it.
What does it mean to "keep John Smiths straight"?
By that I mean that there are a large number of people who share the same name - John Smith being the most common example, or at least it used to be - and the government has to have some way to make sure that it doesn't confuse John Q. Smith from Backwater, Alabama with John Q. Smith from Detroit -- or two John Q. Smiths who happen to live in Backwater, Alabama. Many people find it upsetting when they're arrested for the crimes committed by another person of the same name, but it happens. They'd also not wish to be declared legally deceased when another person of the same name passes away - but that happens too. Partly because of clerical error, partly because our ID system isn't as well-tuned as it might be. Again, you have to strike a balance between collecting information that would allow a cop or coroner to ID someone with 99.999% precision and that person's right to some semblance of privacy. You might object, for privacy concerns, to giving finger prints to get a driver's license - but they might mean the difference between being held for two days without bail and getting out as soon as the police take a print and realize that you're the wrong John Q. Smith. Is it worth the loss of privacy? Well, that's up to the people to decide. You might say no, unless you've had something like that happen to you. Then you might decide it's a small price to pay not to be stuck in a holding cell with a large man named Bubba who thinks you're damn cute...
Slashdot Mirror
True - they simply decided that Nike can't be high-handed and yell "First Amendment!" to avoid having to go to court on the issue...
The fact that Nike is trying to hard to avoid that, however, speaks volumes.
In many cases the music label will prevent a station from playing a song on an already released CD if they plan on releasing a single or music video.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Labels do not have any influence on the ability of radio stations playing any damn track they please. They can choose not to provide full CDs, they can send 20 copies of the single they want played, but they cannot stop a radio station from playing music that's been released. If a station wants to play a song that's available on CD, all they have to do is pick it up. True - many stations stick to the singles because that's what the consultants and reps say they should play, but it's not because they "aren't allowed." Sorry, I don't know where you got this idea, but you're wrong.
It's true that payola probably still goes on with big labels and conglomerates like ClearChannel so that the big singles get played and the other tracks don't - but it's not above-board, and the only thing they can do if stations choose to play a different song is to stop giving them perks. And it's a two-way street here - if ClearChannel decides that they don't like Sony, they can drop all their artists from the playlists and Sony can watch their sales go bye-bye.
And your point is...?
Let's face it, the overwhelming evidence is that Napster didn't hurt the sales of CDs overall.
Certainly there were cheapskates and penny-pinchers determined to suck down all the music for free without spending a cent on CDs, but the overwhelming evidence shows that most people found music they liked on Napster and then decided to buy some of it. Guess what? The ones who used Napster primarily as a way to avoid paying for music were usually too damn cheap (or broke, or both) to spend money on CDs anyway. The music industry has lost nothing on those people. (As much as the RIAA would like you to believe that an individual listening to an "illegal" copy costs them money, it just isn't so - unless they stole the CD from the store.)
For people who, for whatever reason, spend a lot of time at the computer but little time listening to radio or whatever this was a good way to expose them to music that they might want to buy. (And how convenient - download a song you like through Napster, then click on Second Spin or CDNow.com and buy the album so you can listen to it in the car.
Frankly, I'm not upset that Napster's gone - it's caused a lot of people to stop looking for mainstream music on Napster and to look on MP3.com and other sources for independent music. My music purchases will be 80% to 90% independent in the future. There are a few groups I like that are still on major labels, like XTC and Robyn Hitchcock... but otherwise, I'd rather spend my money with the little guy who isn't sticking it to me.
hoping the DJ wouldn't come on early before the song ended.
It's called "ramping" - and it's one of my biggest pet peeves. I used to work in radio and I refused to do it - people tune in to hear music, not some asshole talking over "Shine on Crazy Diamond." Many DJs, however, are so in love with the sound of their own voice that they think it sounds "cool." Let's start a movement - next time you hear a DJ "ramp" your favorite song, call the station and raise hell. Maybe within five years we can wipe the practice out. I've never met a non-DJ that thought it was enjoyable, but it goes on because people don't complain. People in the "industry" think it's a Good Thing.
John Lennon (I believe) was once heard to say "well, time to write a swimming pool" or something to that effect. In other words, "well, this single will put a pool in my backyard" -- at a minimum. But, that was (IMHO) more likely a comment marvelling at the ability to make a bucket of cash from his work - which he would have wanted to do anyway. If anything, The Beatles were after the girls more than the money...
This is a very common trap in the legislation business - propose a horrific piece of crap like the CBDTPA, claiming that there is a "need" for such legislation. Then the really bad bill gets shot down, but since legislators have convinced people that "something has to be done" a slightly less odious - but still objectionable - bill gets passed.
What legislation like the CBDTPA would I accept? None. Absolutely none at all. Let the content providers take the risks of doing business just like everyone else. If they can't accept the risks, then move aside for businesses that will. That's capitalism.
Either one is harmful when it is used in the other's role.
I find it hard to swallow that Open Source/Free Software is harmful in any role so long as it meets the need of the users.
The previous argument, the one I was responding to, was basically saying that Open Source is always bad because it might put a commercial software company out of business. I strongly disagree with that assessment for the reasons I outlined.
I don't really agree with the idea that "boring" software is going to go undeveloped - but if it does, then yes - commercial development can fill those needs. For example, I know of a GPL'ed program that's floating around that is explicitly for managing vet offices. It's my understanding that companies that sell medical equipment also create the software that goes with the equipment, so something that specific is unlikely to benefit the vast community of people using PCs and servers - I don't need to run a blood-gas package on my PC, for example.
Internally-developed software has come a long way since the "bad old days" and internally-developed, or at least internally-tweaked, software has a big place in business today.
Some startups may need very specific "boring" software that is not freely available or likely to become freely available given the whims an desires of the community of developers. In those instances, commercial companies could flourish by producing those specific packages without imposing proprietary OSes, databases, compilers and such on the vast majority of users. However, even the commercial companies who develop very "boring" software will benefit from the availability of free compilers, toolkits and OSes.
I never said that software "must" be given away for free - merely that free software benefits a far greater percentage of the population than proprietary software.
More revenues and profit for software companies leads to:
Fewer jobs at the companies that have to pay for software licenses.
Smaller profit margins for companies that have to pay for software licenses.
Fewer new companies being created due to the higher startup costs of buying software licenses.
Free Software and Open Source leads to:
More jobs for engineers at companies who need people to modify freely available software.
Higher profit margins for companies not paying insane license fees to Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.
Startup companies being able to spend money on their business rather than software licenses.
Adding features to software because they're necessary, not because marketing wants another bullet on the box.
Software being released/deployed when it's ready, not when a company needs to generate revenue.
A less jarring upgrade cycle for companies that actually use the software.
Not being left with your dick in your hand when the company that makes your proprietary accounting package goes out of business without passing on the source code or any means of future support and leaving your data in a proprietary and inaccesible format.
No BSA.
No companies paying off their congresscritter to pass the DCMA.
Bottom line - proprietary software hurts a lot more companies than it helps.
If you want to work for Microsoft, Free Software might be a bad thing. If you want to do real and useful work with a tool that works well it's a very good thing.
Never forget that Microsoft Office, Windows, Visual Studio and so on are designed primarily with one goal in mind: maximizing Microsoft's profit margin. That goal directly conflicts with the goal of a company that uses those tools - namely, to spend as little as possible to get the job done well. The same is true of just about any proprietary software package - the number one goal of Adobe, Macromedia, Quark and every other proprietary company is to sell more licenses. That means that their goal is to cause their customers to buy more software, more rapidly, than they would want to. Spending more IT budget on licensing than personnel - meaning, in reality, fewer jobs. If every company had one or two people supporting Linux and OpenOffice, say, there'd be a hell of a lot more jobs than are created than the 10,000 or so created by Microsoft.
I mean, do you all want to work as sysadmins on Linux and databaseadmins on MySQL instead of software engineers & technical managers on projects that aim to sell the software you have created?
Yes. Working on a team with the goal of selling software means having to work closely with marketing and salescritters. That's punishment enough for anyone.
You could say that in the strictest possible sense that it is immoral, but that's assuming that people actually worry about morals. We live in a society where people take pride in finding ways around legitimately paying for things and services. For example, it's not uncommon to hear people bragging about how they buy something, use it once or twice, and then return it for a refund. Is that moral? I'd say no. But then, who's to say what's moral and what's not? I mean, ask Bill Gates if it's morally correct to go against the terms of a software license and he'd say "no" - and so would RMS, though they'd disagree what a license should be. Ask your average 17-year-old, you'll get a different answer. Ask your average parent, and you'll get a different answer.
And, as you touch on in the above post, many people see copying software as a kind of civil disobedience.
Let's turn the question around for a second - is it moral for Microsoft to charge what it does for software? Knowing that if they charged a much lower price a lot of people wouldn't illegally copy their software, but they might not make the same profit margins - but by demanding insanely high profit margins they either force people to do without or copy illegally. I mean, Bill Gates and Hillary Rosen like to talk about the immorality of copying that which we haven't bought - but what about the morality of gouging your customers and the people that work for you? I mean, the RIAA isn't looking to quash copying for the benefit of mankind or their artists, they're trying to protect their business model and jacked-up prices on CDs. Is that moral? $400 for Office is not insignificant - that's more than some people make in a week or two weeks, and it comes with no real warranty or guarantee. If you buy a $1000 new computer you have some guarantee that it will work for a period of time or it will be replaced, if it doesn't work the way you expect it to you get to return it after a certain period - you have no real right to any such expectations with software. Is that a moral way to treat customers? I don't think so.
Maybe morality doesn't even enter into it. Software copying does not hurt anyone directly. It can be argued that it hurts developers and companies indirectly, but it's not the same as stealing physical goods. If I copy Office from a CD that you bought - they've been paid once for that media and manual (if any) so their production costs are covered. If I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, what have they really lost? Don't give me this "lost revenue" argument - a lot of people who copy software could not or would not pay the price in the first place - so what is really lost?
If we want to worry about the morality of indirect effects, then anyone who purchases Nike goods is guilty of supporting child labor and abuse. If you purchase goods manufactured in Mexico or China (for example) you're putting people in the US out of work and supporting companies that are looking to skirt labor laws and wage requirements to make a bigger profit. Is that moral?
I'm not saying that it's right to copy proprietary software, but I'm not quite ready to condemn it as immoral either - and I'm not quite sure that the software companies can claim the high moral ground on this issue either.
While I agree that software developers have a right to set licensing terms (sale, GPL, BSD, whatever) and require payment if that's their desire it is hard for people to agree that copying bits is the same thing as stealing physical property.
For example, if I break into your house and steal your stereo you no longer have a stereo. If I steal your wallet, your money is gone. If I copy Microsoft Office, Microsoft "loses" a licensing fee that they might or might not have received in the first place. If you ask 20 people if it's wrong to steal a boxed copy of Office from CompUSA it's quite likely that 19 or 20 of those people will say yes. If you ask 20 people if it's wrong to copy Office from their friend who bought it at CompUSA, I'd be willing to bet 15 to 20 of them will say "no" or "kind of, but it's too expensive to buy."
While I agree it's wrong, I don't really place it in the same category as stealing. I think that software companies will continue to have a hard time being taken seriously on this concept until they come up with a less dramatic and more accurate term. It is not "stealing" or "piracy" it's "unauthorized use" - which is still wrong, but doesn't have the dramatic effect that the BSA would like to promote. They want us to believe that anyone who has ever copied software is the moral equivalent of pickpocket, and I don't think they're going to have much success there.
Also, think about this - people will never feel guilty about ripping off Microsoft or Adobe when they perceive such contempt from these companies for their patronage. When Microsoft, Adobe or other software companies treat their customers like customers instead of potential thieves and "consumers" to have punative and restrictive licensing schemes forced down their throats, they might find people less likely to violate their licensing and be willing to pay for the software. When they charge reasonable prices for software, then people will be likely to just pay it. $400 or whatever for M$ Office is not a reasonable fee. $600 for Adobe Illustrator is not a reasonable fee. Not for the average person. You buy three "professional" packages for your computer and you've already paid more for software than you paid for the computer it runs on - and asking for people to pay more money for an intangible thing than for the tangible thing they run it on is never going to fly.
they should be urged not to hold their breath until it happens.
On the contrary, I suggest they be urged to hold their breath permanently.
I think it will take more than one album. We're talking a start-up cost of at least $200-$300 just to listen to one album. You'd have to have an album of all-new material by the Beatles, all four of them, before I'd think about laying down that kind of cash.
I really don't see how that addresses what I was saying. You can do the same thing with any merchant who is willing to ring up a "sale" for cash instead of ringing it up as a cash advance. If you've got a friend who owns a small store, you can do the same thing. (Less common, true, but it's not unheard-of.) Also, while I was in college it was a common thing for someone to pay for dinner/groceries/movies or whatever for a group of people and then get the cash so they'd have cash. Same effect, totally legit. (Note that I've never heard of finding an end-run around the cash advance to be "illegal") So, this isn't exclusive to Paypal, not by a long chalk.
However, PayPal is aggressively and deceptively trying to switch people from paying via credit cards to paying via checking accounts. They'll tell you they need a bank account number to "verify" your identity and such - as if a credit card doesn't to this - and then switch your account to default to your bank account rather than credit card. Why? Because they don't have the same interest rates for money transfers from banks.
All in all, I find it hard to get weepy for the prospect of PayPal being shut out of business with Mastercard or being put out of business altogether. Mastercard isn't much better, but at least they're regulated and you have a lot better resolution process with a bank that issues a MasterCard than you do with PayPal - just try to get in touch directly and quickly with a human being there. It's form-letter hell all the way.
So they are just trying to get a cut of PayPal?
I think they're retaliating over PayPal's trying to cut credit cards out of the online transaction loop. PayPal is pursuing some aggressive tactics, and dishonest IMHO, to get people to use their bank accounts rather than credit cards because of the interest. The thing is, PayPal is really a middleman looking for a piece of the credit card companies and merchant's action.
I don't care much for MasterCard or PayPal, but there are probably legitimate and not-so-legitimate reasons that MasterCard is taking this step.
Do you need any more clarification?
Well, yes. Seriously - a lot of Slashdotters use Windows, a lot use Linux, a fair percentage use *BSD, a not insignificant number use MacOS, and there are smatterings of BeOS, OS/2, Solaris and even Amiga fanatics. While it's not wholly unreasonable to think that the poster meant Linux, I think it's churlish to make that as an assumption and proceed to berate the poster on that basis.
Again, the XBox runs some kind of stripped down Windows, I think, but they could have meant "if XBox ran a real version of Windows" as well as "if XBox ran Linux." In fact, since the PS2 runs Linux, it's not unreasonable to wonder why the XBox can't/won't run Windows. Since virtually all the parts in the XBox are similar to PC hardware, Microsoft could produce a fuller version of Windows to run on it if they wanted to.
While many people equate "real OS" with Linux, nowhere in the post does it mention Linux.
He could have been referring to any OS, so why did you assume that he meant Linux?
Oh - in reference to your sig - Konqueror isn't, AFAIK, 100% necessary for KDE, and I believe it (KDE) can be compiled without it. It's included for convenience sake by most Linux distributions - but it's not required for other KDE apps to function and can be left out. Linux users also have choice of desktops, so they can choose to use KDE or GNOME or XFce or fvwm or twm or IceWM or Enlightenment... Any OEM manufacturer who makes Linux boxen is absolutely 100% free to leave KDE or Konqueror off a machine, no one is abusing a monopoly to require its inclusion, so your pathetic little analogy doesn't hold up.
The point im trying to get accross is, you cant say "this person is sick" or "this person is evil" just because they have strange fantasies
First, yes I can say that someone who wants to have sex with kids (even if they don't do it) is sick. There are a number of sexual fetishes that are certainly not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't call them sick - but for someone to desire to have sex with children? Yes, that's sick. End of story. It is considered a psychological disorder.
Evil is another story. No, I don't consider someone evil if they have fantasies about children, so long as they don't follow through on them. Evil is when they do.
By the way, you don't know what you're talking about - I can very well say that someone is a pedophile without their having abused a child. A pedophile is, by definition, someone who prefers children as sexual objects - that doesn't mean that they've actually had sex with a child or even bought child porn - just that they have a strong sexual desire for children. Look it up.
It's impossible to have a law that leaves the age of consent up to individual interpretation - therefore, we've set the arbitrary age of consent at a high age to protect "children" as long as possible.
I don't know how old you are, but I get the impression you're probably not past 25. You'd be surprised how young and immature someone at 18 seems to be. (I say "seems" because I fully recognize the bias inherent with age. When you're 18, a 10-year-old usually seems unbelievably naive - when you're 30, an 18-year-old seems just as naive. If you asked a group of 80-year-olds, they'd probably say that 18 is young for consent...)
Of course people don't magically mature at 18, some mature earlier, some mature later, some never do. You may not be surprised to know that the "meme" of protecting people under the age of 18 is very new, historically speaking. The idea that children should be protected from certain realities would be novel to someone in 1600.
I can't agree that the current laws on staturoy rape are wrong - though they might use improvement, I think there should be laws that protect 17-year-old girls (and younger) from older men. If that means that an 18-year-old dating a 16-year-old has to keep it in his pants for two years, so be it. No system of laws can possibly account for all possible scenarios, at some point they have to be arbitrary and sometimes even unfair to protect the most people in the most possible situations.
However nothing is wrong with virtual child porn or any other form of expression as long as no one is harmed
Well, it's certainly "wrong" as in "man, that is soooo wrong," but I agree that no form of speech or artwork - in and of itself - harms others.
I don't really agree that it (virtual child porn) protects children, but it doesn't exploit them either. I think this law was really an excuse to persecute anyone who would even discuss or think about children sexually. It's a very seductive line of thinking for the majority of people in the country who are horrified (including myself) by people who are sexually excited by children.
It's their code, they can licence it however they damn well please.
Yes, but what gives them the right to extend their license to other code? The GPL requires that you feed back any changes, etc. They're trying to say, in essence, "if you use our products, you can't use them with other products that aren't licensed to our satisfaction." If this is acceptible, what's to stop them from banning any third-party software whatsoever in the future?
Where's the freedom in being severely restricted with what you can do with software that you've paid for, or being bullied by a mega-corporation?
Otherwise, you have no right to expect anyone to respect licences like the GPL.
The GPL doesn't extend to other software - you can run GPL'ed software on Windows, no one complains. You can run proprietary software on top of GPL'ed software - even though the developers might prefer otherwise, it's allowed.
The bottom line is that Microsoft obviously feels that they can't compete on the merits of their products alone - even with a dominant market share and a marketing and R&D budget that dwarfs any of their competitors.
If this were in any business other than software - ie, one that the majority of people in the country actually feel competent - it would never work.
If Amazon gets more successful at this, we may have only a few copies flying around the country as people resell books.
I doubt that this is likely. The greater the demand for a book, it will inevitably require more and more new copies. Also, the nightmare scenarios that the book industry (and recording, and movie) likes to paint are highly unlikely.
1. Many people shop on Amazon -- but many do not. Barnes & Noble, Tattered Cover and other bookstores are unlikely to start selling used books alongside new ones.
2. If a used copy is unavailable, people will usually go ahead and purchase new.
3. Part of the renewed bargain hunting is a result of inflated publisher prices - I've noted that the cost of a hardback is now about $30 - up from $24 or so just a few years ago, and up from $15 or so about a decade ago. The price of books is far outstripping the rate of inflation. The publishers need look no farther than their own practices to find the reason that people are seeking bargains.
4. Human nature - Many bibliophiles would not be willing to sell a book even after finishing it. Some people resell books, but many do not. I'm guessing it's in the 50%-75% range that keep their books, maybe higher. I tend to pass on books if anything, rather than reselling (with the exception of college textbooks - It was either resell 'em or eat Ramen even MORE often...I couldn't do it...).
I buy reference books and fiction that I "must" have new, but the bulk of my book purchases are used books. I can't see paying $12-$30 for a novel.
I'm also an author, and I'm infinitely prefer that everyone purchase new copies of my books
I don't see what would get a real vim user to use kvim rather than just vim in konsole.
I probably wouldn't use kvim instead of vim for writing or whatnot - but they mention embedding it in other KDE apps, which might be very attractive if you happen to like using KMail or another KDE application. I've been using vim so long that the keystrokes are now force of habit - using any other editor is painful.
I wonder how many people already use GVim instead of Vim? It's not for me, but I'm still glad that they're available for the folks who are new to *nix and who aren't comfortable starting out with Vim without pretty icons and menus.
When the same document is required for things unrelated to driving, such as banking, buying alcohol, getting a telephone, etc then things start to smell bad.
None of the things you mention are government requirements -- individual companies have decided that driver's licenses are a reasonable method of ensuring that you are who you say you are. Granted, my driving ability has nothing to do with my ability to pay my phone bill -- but this isn't a nefarious plot, nor is it indicative of a police state. Again, being asked to show a driver's license isn't the same as requiring papers to travel freely or whatever.
You can get a ID card that is not a driver's license that banks, telephone companies and such will accept as proof of your identity. They'll accept military ID cards, or state ID cards. If you have an issue with needing an ID to get a bank account, take it up with the bank - it's not a government requirement.
You don't need a driver's license to go from Iowa to Indiana (well, unless you drive...), you don't need a driver's license to collect social security or to own property or vote. You may need picture ID, but it doesn't have to be a driver's license - I think it varies state to state. And yes, in some (if not all) states you can register to vote at the same time you register for a driver's license but it's not a requirement. You don't even need a driver's license to go to foreign countries or to return - that's what passports are for. Why they're not requiring biometric data for that is beyond me.
If people don't like giving biometric information to get a driver's license - then they should protest that. But most people will turn a deaf ear when the only argument you can offer against it is slippery-slope paranoid police state scenario. Why not make a lucid argument against it based on real objections? It appears to be an invasion of privacy, no further argument is necessary. Invasion of privacy is bad enough. If people deem that biometric information is an acceptible thing for the government to collect, then I guess that it's something people will have to live with.
Call me a wacko
Well, if you insist...
Look there are two issues that you raise - one of which has nothing to do with the debate about the use of licenses as ID. I agree that if I bought a "lifetime license" and had it revoked later I'd be pissed. I think anyone would. I also think the idea of "lifetime licenses" is pretty bad - after a certain age, some people just shouldn't be driving. But that's another issue.
The second, more germane to this topic -- that asking a motorist to present a license being a presumption of guilt is a bit of a stretch.
Stopping a motorist and searching their car without probable cause - yes, that would be alarming. Asking to see registration? Sorry, I don't see that as a huge infringement on civil liberties. Now - if the cops are stopping you ever ten feet, that's harrassment - but if you're speeding or whatever and a cop asks you to present a license, that's hardly an abuse of your civil liberties.
If cops are stopping people just to show their license -- regardless of whether they've committed any other moving violations -- then that might be an issue. They sometimes do this, but it's rare and usually only when they're looking for something. (At least in the US.) But cops in the US ask to see a license when they pull you over for speeding or whatever - this isn't just to see if you have one, it's so they can run a check on your license and so they can write the license number down on the ticket.
This is different from the nightmare scenario that the original poster was trying to raise - namely a police state where people are required to present "papers" (ie, permission) to travel from point A to point B. The idea that you might be restricted from travelling from town to town without express permission. This is the "slippery slope" scenario that the original poster is asking us to consider. I reject that driver's licenses are going to lead to this scenario, even by subtle degrees. Yes, our children may someday be giving retina scans to receive a license - that doesn't mean that it's a nefarious scheme to restrict civil liberties. It means that we depend on driver's licenses to serve as a de facto ID, and that we want these de facto IDs to be as accurate as humanly possible. Should driver's licenses be the prime means of proving that you're who you say you are? Well, maybe not -- but if people object to connecting the two concepts (driving and identification) then they need to raise that issue - not this shadowy spectre of a iron-fisted police state. I personally do not object to the concept of requiring a test to prove that an individual is likely to operate a vehicle safely. I also don't have a problem with the concept of requiring them to carry proof of having passed this test. I also don't have an objection to a ID card that is used to verify that I'm who I say I am. The two are tied out of convenience, and that may be problematic but it's also deeply entrenched in our culture and institutions.
The idea that you might be asked to show ID is not indicative of oppression or a police state. And, for just a second, try to think about the guy on the other side of this equation - namely, the cop. This is a person that we're asking to protect the general populace from murderers, thieves, rapists and so forth. They have to have some method of ID'ing people, and of running at least a cursory check on people who might be a murder suspect or whatever. Should they have unlimited power? Of course not. But if we tie their hands too tightly, we effectively remove their ability to arrest people who we rightly want behind bars.
Let's also remember that, in the US at least, driver's licenses are also used to verify that we are who we say we are for the purpose of cashing checks, using credit cards and other transactions. It's in our best interest to depend on a form of ID that is hard to forge and that defeats impersonation -- so if you lose your wallet or have it stolen someone with drastically different facial features or whatever is going to have a hard time using your credit card.
I have trouble thinking of a scenario in which an innocent person is going to be put in harm's way by having biometric information in a database. Do I like the idea of losing a bit of privacy? No, but I'm having a tough time thinking of a good solid argument against it that isn't based on a slippery slope argument or the idea that it just makes people uneasy.
How much regulation is acceptable?
Well, that's really the question. Of course the answer varies from person to person, but as a society we have to settle on something that protects the interests of the greatest number of people without crippling the government's ability to do the things that we ask of it.
What does it mean to "keep John Smiths straight"?
By that I mean that there are a large number of people who share the same name - John Smith being the most common example, or at least it used to be - and the government has to have some way to make sure that it doesn't confuse John Q. Smith from Backwater, Alabama with John Q. Smith from Detroit -- or two John Q. Smiths who happen to live in Backwater, Alabama. Many people find it upsetting when they're arrested for the crimes committed by another person of the same name, but it happens. They'd also not wish to be declared legally deceased when another person of the same name passes away - but that happens too. Partly because of clerical error, partly because our ID system isn't as well-tuned as it might be. Again, you have to strike a balance between collecting information that would allow a cop or coroner to ID someone with 99.999% precision and that person's right to some semblance of privacy. You might object, for privacy concerns, to giving finger prints to get a driver's license - but they might mean the difference between being held for two days without bail and getting out as soon as the police take a print and realize that you're the wrong John Q. Smith. Is it worth the loss of privacy? Well, that's up to the people to decide. You might say no, unless you've had something like that happen to you. Then you might decide it's a small price to pay not to be stuck in a holding cell with a large man named Bubba who thinks you're damn cute...