After all, the major issue with the Big 5 and Mrs. Rosen is how can the artist retain the copyright of his/her own works of art while being properly compensated.
Not to me. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about having the artist "retain the copyright of his/her own works of art". To me the issue is the use of the state to arrest and imprison people simply for the purpose of enhancing private profit, rather than to "promote progress of science and the useful arts", as wisely prescribed by the US constitution.
I hope this didn't come across as a rant, but if anyon can enlighten me on how this license would benefit anyone, please do. Until then I cautiously take the side of Mr. Glass.
Even if it does not benefit musicians, it will be of considerable benefit to nonmusicians -- probably over 99% of the population -- who don't want to live in a police state.
So for example, one of the first things we decided was that no more than a few of the core developers could be hired by one company. We clearly stated this to Great Bridge. We did not want a case where they basically just came in and hired everybody, because people outside the group would say "Well, who are we working for now? Is this an open source project, or is this just Great Bridge working on Postgres?" So it was a very deliberate thing to say that only a few people would be involved with Great Bridge.
...
We have three core developers hired by Great Bridge.
Now, as for all journalists being corporate whores, I would have to disagree. I have written about technology for 10 years and have never altered what I wrote due to the request or pressure of a company.
The problem is not so much deliberate alteration of particular stories. The problem is that companies tend to hire journalists who are in line with their own opinions and biases (usually toward advertisers). Journalists who would "rock the boat" tend never to get hired in the first place. Or even if they do, the company they work for tends to lose advertising and maybe even go out of business.
In other words, the forces shaping journalism are Darwinian (selection, survival of the fittest) rather than Lamarckian (changes in individual organisms -- or reporters).
He did worse than that. He used a stolen document from the Carter campaign to help Reagan prepare for the debate. Juanita Lozano
is facing jail time with hardened criminals for a
similar theft from the Bush campaign last year.
If Wall Street systems stopped trading, Banking systems stopped transacting, Phone systems stopped routing,
... they would probably just hire some of the thousands of laid-off dot-com workers out there.
Besides, what makes you think all sysadmins and programmers are against the DMCA? Who do you think works at Adobe, just a bunch of lawyers? It's programmers who created this monster in the first place.
In short, a strike ain't gonna happen.
Hilary Rosen -- ACLU "Torch of Liberty" award
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 1
The ACLU has a rather unseemly history of collaboration with IP content providers like the RIAA.
The first? The first international DMCA violator, yes, but not the first foreigner "nabbed" by the US. Was Manuel Noriega in the US when they "nabbed" him? (No, unless you consider Panama part of the US.)
The US government does whatever it wants, international law notwithstanding. Has done so for a long time.
that doesn't mean that they're out to spy on your computer.
You flatter yourself to think that the NSA even cares about the half-naked Brittney Spears pictures you are downloading. They don't.
I agree that it is silly to suggest that the boilerplate disclaimer is evidence of a secret NSA plot.
But your suggestion -- that an intelligence agency is not interested in doing any spying
-- is equally ludicrous.
Re:How long can the US DoJ go on?
on
Sklyarov Update
·
· Score: 1
Well, imagine you hit me and I call the cops and get you arrested for assault & battery. Later I
change my mind and say, "No, I was mistaken, it was a consensual contact", then how can you be convicted of assault?
This happens frequently in cases of domestic abuse, where an abused woman doesn't want to press charges against her husband.
Because this happens so often, lots of places have a policy of prosecuting a suspected abuser
even if the victim doesn't want to press charges.
Of course, if the victim does decide to cooperate with prosecutors in pressing charges, it helps the prosecution. But it's not a requirement.
Re:Finally, some news from Russia
on
Sklyarov Update
·
· Score: 1
But then, seeing how our people have the freedom to learn and speak out against policies we disagree with, and seeing how our government works
not just for citizens but for anyone who wants a piece of the pie to have our freedoms, I can't help but be thankful that I'm lucky enough to live here.
However, I suspect that you are not opposed to wage slavery in general, but rather are opposed to
yourself being in thrall, while you are quite content to let the
rest of the population be wage slaves contributing their tax dollars to the enforcement
of the IP laws which keep you free and prosperous. If this is the case, let me give you
some tactical advice:
Most intellectual property
holders argue for IP by claiming they will bring economic and technological benefits
to the population as a whole (perhaps true). I think this argument has a better chance of
succeeding than yours, in which you somewhat pathetically suggest that proprietary software will save
a miniscule proportion of the population (which just coincidentally includes yourself) from wage slavery.
possibly have military advisors looking for the strategy within the killing (because lets face it, if you don't have
a strategy and just go around to frag, you're not going to make it to the upper echelons of the match)
Yes, make it like any other televised sport, with a play-by-play man and a color commentator. Maybe this would be the perfect job to bring OJ Simpson out of retirement.
In the space of a few minutes you've gone from saying "There were no African economies" to saying
the "natives had absolutely no chance in even attempting to oppose European conquest". So you've abandoned your original argument and moved on to merely stating the obvious -- that Africa was simply conquered at gunpoint.
I rest my case.
You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. None. You are a typical uneducated spoiled pampered suburban neoliberal slob with no knowledge of history other than the occasional tidbits you manage to pick up from Hollywood movies.
Here's a bibliography for you. Go read some of the works cited, if you can find any that don't exceed your reading level. Then come back and express an informed opinion.
The article lacks proof though, there in lies the problem.
The problem is not a lack of "proof".
The problem is that the British legal system favors plaintiffs in libel suits.
Under the American system, the onus is not on the defendant to prove that
a statement is true; the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is
false.
Since the government is refusing to investigate the incident in
Tanzania, it would be very difficult for Barrick to prove libel.
Even if Palast and the Observer
had "proof",
truth is not an absolute defence under British law.
This is why holocaust deniers are able to sue for libel
when people call them
"holocaust deniers".
(The holocaust-denying plaintiff lost the lawsuit, but only because the judge ruled his "reputation had not been damaged"; not because of the truth of the defendant's statements.)
You can't accuse corporations run by powerful and *well* connected individuals of murder without proof.
During the Clinton presidency, did people refrain from accusing
Clinton of complicity in the death of Vincent Foster,
for fear of libel lawsuits? No, because in the US, courts tend to heavily favor
the defendant in libel suits, and hence these suits are rarely successful. This is why a plaintiff will attempt to move a libel lawsuit to another country on the slightest pretext.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to me. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about having the artist "retain the copyright of his/her own works of art". To me the issue is the use of the state to arrest and imprison people simply for the purpose of enhancing private profit, rather than to "promote progress of science and the useful arts", as wisely prescribed by the US constitution.
I hope this didn't come across as a rant, but if anyon can enlighten me on how this license would benefit anyone, please do. Until then I cautiously take the side of Mr. Glass.
Even if it does not benefit musicians, it will be of considerable benefit to nonmusicians -- probably over 99% of the population -- who don't want to live in a police state.
From an interview with Bruce Momjian last year:
The problem is not so much deliberate alteration of particular stories. The problem is that companies tend to hire journalists who are in line with their own opinions and biases (usually toward advertisers). Journalists who would "rock the boat" tend never to get hired in the first place. Or even if they do, the company they work for tends to lose advertising and maybe even go out of business.
In other words, the forces shaping journalism are Darwinian (selection, survival of the fittest) rather than Lamarckian (changes in individual organisms -- or reporters).
He did worse than that. He used a stolen document from the Carter campaign to help Reagan prepare for the debate. Juanita Lozano is facing jail time with hardened criminals for a similar theft from the Bush campaign last year.
Very true!
The scary part is that the people making those -1 posts aren't in any of those three locations. They're actually living among us in normal society.
Well, not everyone. They stomp on every right-wing journalist's toes. :)
If it Slashdot is so bad, then why are you here? Why don't you take the advice in the title?
Besides, what makes you think all sysadmins and programmers are against the DMCA? Who do you think works at Adobe, just a bunch of lawyers? It's programmers who created this monster in the first place.
In short, a strike ain't gonna happen.
The ACLU has a rather unseemly history of collaboration with IP content providers like the RIAA.
Probably Reagan's air traffic controllers thought that they were indispensable, too.
They added a few conspiracy charges against him. It's up to 25 years now.
The US government does whatever it wants, international law notwithstanding. Has done so for a long time.
Actually, you're right, I don't like it. Gates tends to donate to causes like third world vaccines while he holds stock in biotech companies. Sounds like a conflict of interest there.
The main evidence he presents is the absence of hardware vendors selling dual-boot systems. But there seems to be at least one counterexample.
You do realize that there is some evidence of a precedent for that sort of thing.
I agree that it is silly to suggest that the boilerplate disclaimer is evidence of a secret NSA plot. But your suggestion -- that an intelligence agency is not interested in doing any spying -- is equally ludicrous.
This happens frequently in cases of domestic abuse, where an abused woman doesn't want to press charges against her husband. Because this happens so often, lots of places have a policy of prosecuting a suspected abuser even if the victim doesn't want to press charges.
Of course, if the victim does decide to cooperate with prosecutors in pressing charges, it helps the prosecution. But it's not a requirement.
Ah yes, the US government, tirelessly working for our freedoms.
By the way, the US surpassed Russia a few years ago as the country which has the world's highest rate of incarceration.
As for the probability of conviction, your guess is as good as mine. But the DMCA does not consider the strength of the encryption to be relevant.
I hate to break the news to you, fella, but the vast majority of hard-working people in this great capitalist society are wage slaves.
If you are really against wage slavery, I think you should lend your support to the many anarchist and libertarian socialist movements who have long worked to oppose it.
However, I suspect that you are not opposed to wage slavery in general, but rather are opposed to yourself being in thrall, while you are quite content to let the rest of the population be wage slaves contributing their tax dollars to the enforcement of the IP laws which keep you free and prosperous. If this is the case, let me give you some tactical advice: Most intellectual property holders argue for IP by claiming they will bring economic and technological benefits to the population as a whole (perhaps true). I think this argument has a better chance of succeeding than yours, in which you somewhat pathetically suggest that proprietary software will save a miniscule proportion of the population (which just coincidentally includes yourself) from wage slavery.
It is not Free Software advocates who are wielding the gun. It is "intellectual property" holders who are doing so. If you violate intellectual property laws, jackbooted government troops bearing firearms will break down your door and drag you to jail at gunpoint.
Free Software advocates want less force-based coercion in society, not more. To claim otherwise is simply Orwellian.
Yes, make it like any other televised sport, with a play-by-play man and a color commentator. Maybe this would be the perfect job to bring OJ Simpson out of retirement.
In the space of a few minutes you've gone from saying "There were no African economies" to saying the "natives had absolutely no chance in even attempting to oppose European conquest". So you've abandoned your original argument and moved on to merely stating the obvious -- that Africa was simply conquered at gunpoint. I rest my case.
Racist and false.
You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. None. You are a typical uneducated spoiled pampered suburban neoliberal slob with no knowledge of history other than the occasional tidbits you manage to pick up from Hollywood movies.
Here's a bibliography for you. Go read some of the works cited, if you can find any that don't exceed your reading level. Then come back and express an informed opinion.
The problem is not a lack of "proof". The problem is that the British legal system favors plaintiffs in libel suits. Under the American system, the onus is not on the defendant to prove that a statement is true; the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is false. Since the government is refusing to investigate the incident in Tanzania, it would be very difficult for Barrick to prove libel.
Even if Palast and the Observer had "proof", truth is not an absolute defence under British law. This is why holocaust deniers are able to sue for libel when people call them "holocaust deniers". (The holocaust-denying plaintiff lost the lawsuit, but only because the judge ruled his "reputation had not been damaged"; not because of the truth of the defendant's statements.)
You can't accuse corporations run by powerful and *well* connected individuals of murder without proof.
During the Clinton presidency, did people refrain from accusing Clinton of complicity in the death of Vincent Foster, for fear of libel lawsuits? No, because in the US, courts tend to heavily favor the defendant in libel suits, and hence these suits are rarely successful. This is why a plaintiff will attempt to move a libel lawsuit to another country on the slightest pretext.