Some asshats just like shooting at people, and they'll do it until we lock them up. But why should we tolerate them shooting at random people, when we have such a surfeit of lawyers?
If we can pass laws saying that law enforcement officers are more equal than anybody else, then we can pass laws that say that lawyers are less equal. Put them in a field and declare open season. The survivors can file suit.
This isn't meant to be funny. Let me analogise you an analogy:
Suppose that tomorrow, we had a coup by Trekkers. They declare that from now on, all laws will be written in Klingon. Only those that speak Klingon may write, interpret and argue the law.
Would we tolerate it? Then why do we tolerate laws written largely by lawyers that require other lawyers to interpret?
The convicted monopolist abusers that have systematically bought or wrecked all of their competition, or some other, fluffier company that I wasn't previously aware of?
As far as I can see, it was the outline for a parody, but he never got around to adding any actual parody. But hell, slap on a Josh Kirby cover, and the slavering fanboys will devour it anyway. You know who you are.
True, circa 1980. Now, post Pratchett and Potter, you write the first three novels of a series before even approaching a publisher, and you offer them outlines and options on at least four more.
Publishers don't sell books any more, they sell authors and series.
Re:This isn't another homosexual sodomy romp is it
on
New Heinlein Novel
·
· Score: 1
I didn't think he did weird stuff like incest, just good old fashioned animals-fucking-teen-sluts action. We should really get this straightened out.
Um, quite. I always got the feeling that the difference between an Aibo and a cheap knock off was this:
Aibo knock off: Cheap plastic full of dumb technology.
Genuine Aibo: Cheap plastic full of smart technology that they promise will actually do stuff in the N+1 version.
Re:This isn't another homosexual sodomy romp is it
on
New Heinlein Novel
·
· Score: 1
Well, To Sail Beyond the Sunset is pretty much incest pr0n. As it turns out, I misremember Stephen Donaldson; I believe the daddy-daughter action is narrowly avoided, probably by Thomas Covenant slaking his lust by raping a passing penguin (clench, hate, clench).
I'm not sure that L. Ron Hubbard actually wrote about incest, he just appeared to be the product of it.
It's easy to be brave when saying "let's you and him fight". It's not half as funny when you have to decide whether to gamble your own future on a point of principle.
I understand that, which is why I used "OK" instead of "fine" or "legal". But we're talking about why people (as in Joe and Jane People) might get into a "state of mind" where they can't see what's so wrong with filesharing.
Well, how many of Joe and Jane The People even know what AHRA stands for, let alone what it contains? For that matter, how many "digital audio recording devices" implement Serial Copy Management System or equivelant? AHRA is largely ignored even by those that should know about it and be bound by it.
Before you get too excited, what you're thinking about is almost certainly criminal convictions for kiddie porn peddling. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt". If you can introduce any doubt, you get off.
The standard of proof in a civil case is simply "balance of probabilty". There's no assumption of innocence. Now, is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because you go wormed?
For bonus points, given that you're posting this idea on a site with a good overlap with the people that are going to get hit with suits, are you making it more or less likely that any claim about being wormed is going to be viewed as probably bogus?
>The only plausible answer, for me, is to neither purchase RIAA goods, nor participate in copyright infringement. I wonder why this state of mind is so hard to grasp?
While I'm substantially in agreement, I'll answer this question as though it's not rhetorical.
Listen to a song on the radio: OK
Be forced to listen to a song in a mall or supermarket: OK
Tape a song from the radio: OK
Borrow a CD from a friend: OK
Watch a music video on TV: OK
Tape a music video from TV: OK
Receive a mix tape from your cousin: OK
Listen to a digitally streamed song whenever you like: OK
Make a digital recording of a song in any form: BURN IN HELL.
Kids today (bless 'em) are growing up in a world where the RIAA pays to ensure that they can watch, listen to and stream music pretty much whenever they like. The RIAA assumes that they'll understand the implicit deal whereby buying music on CD pays for the other eleventy ways that they can listen to it. Well, good luck to 'em. They'll need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as I was getting set up to rant, I discover that "prolly" is now a recognised acronym for "probably".
To newspeak is good. I did plus ungood thoughtcrime.
Ah ha, but I'll be sober in the morning, and you'll still be a cunt.
Look up. See that thing way, way above you, far beyond your grasp? That's the point.
Some asshats just like shooting at people, and they'll do it until we lock them up. But why should we tolerate them shooting at random people, when we have such a surfeit of lawyers?
If we can pass laws saying that law enforcement officers are more equal than anybody else, then we can pass laws that say that lawyers are less equal. Put them in a field and declare open season. The survivors can file suit.
This isn't meant to be funny. Let me analogise you an analogy:
Suppose that tomorrow, we had a coup by Trekkers. They declare that from now on, all laws will be written in Klingon. Only those that speak Klingon may write, interpret and argue the law.
Would we tolerate it? Then why do we tolerate laws written largely by lawyers that require other lawyers to interpret?
The convicted monopolist abusers that have systematically bought or wrecked all of their competition, or some other, fluffier company that I wasn't previously aware of?
They can dish it out but they can't take it, eh?
Well, duuuuuuuh.
Quite. I can't decide whether the omission of "effervescent" was deliberate or simply newbie error.
>the only reason this wasn't published was that it was too racy by 1930's standards
And you know that because...?
(Hint: who told you that? An independent reviewer?)
I think you mean: "cshark out"
As far as I can see, it was the outline for a parody, but he never got around to adding any actual parody. But hell, slap on a Josh Kirby cover, and the slavering fanboys will devour it anyway. You know who you are.
And the point would be? Other than that hot young women should fuck creepy old patriarchs? Oh, wait...
True, circa 1980. Now, post Pratchett and Potter, you write the first three novels of a series before even approaching a publisher, and you offer them outlines and options on at least four more.
Publishers don't sell books any more, they sell authors and series.
I didn't think he did weird stuff like incest, just good old fashioned animals-fucking-teen-sluts action. We should really get this straightened out.
Um, quite. I always got the feeling that the difference between an Aibo and a cheap knock off was this:
Well, To Sail Beyond the Sunset is pretty much incest pr0n. As it turns out, I misremember Stephen Donaldson; I believe the daddy-daughter action is narrowly avoided, probably by Thomas Covenant slaking his lust by raping a passing penguin (clench, hate, clench).
I'm not sure that L. Ron Hubbard actually wrote about incest, he just appeared to be the product of it.
Yeah, you'd really put them in their place. My goodness, you could beat them to death with your enormous testicles.
You'd hit them with a class action? With who else? Your roommates, Mr Moms Washing Machine and Ms Dads Toolbox?
Heinlein was into incestuous consensual patriarchal discipline dom-sum fetishism, fool!
Wait, I might be thinking about Stephen R. Donaldson. Which one sets their daddy-daughter fucking in rocketships?
Work it out yourself.
I found it down the back of a sofa that I bought from the ex wife of the cousin of the guy that fixed the car of Heinlein's dentist's cleaning lady.
You can have it for a million bucks. I'll donate the money to, uh, space or something.
Well, I'm wishing them good luck.
It's easy to be brave when saying "let's you and him fight". It's not half as funny when you have to decide whether to gamble your own future on a point of principle.
Here's hoping you find that out for yourself.
I understand that, which is why I used "OK" instead of "fine" or "legal". But we're talking about why people (as in Joe and Jane People) might get into a "state of mind" where they can't see what's so wrong with filesharing.
Well, how many of Joe and Jane The People even know what AHRA stands for, let alone what it contains? For that matter, how many "digital audio recording devices" implement Serial Copy Management System or equivelant? AHRA is largely ignored even by those that should know about it and be bound by it.
Mmm, big talk. Why don't you get in touch with the RIAA, send them a list of your shared mp3, and tell them to "bring it the fuck on"?
She was a leathery skinned old dyke who enjoyed a brief burst of popularity in the late 20th century.
Before you get too excited, what you're thinking about is almost certainly criminal convictions for kiddie porn peddling. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt". If you can introduce any doubt, you get off.
The standard of proof in a civil case is simply "balance of probabilty". There's no assumption of innocence. Now, is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because you go wormed?
For bonus points, given that you're posting this idea on a site with a good overlap with the people that are going to get hit with suits, are you making it more or less likely that any claim about being wormed is going to be viewed as probably bogus?
>The only plausible answer, for me, is to neither purchase RIAA goods, nor participate in copyright infringement. I wonder why this state of mind is so hard to grasp?
While I'm substantially in agreement, I'll answer this question as though it's not rhetorical.
Kids today (bless 'em) are growing up in a world where the RIAA pays to ensure that they can watch, listen to and stream music pretty much whenever they like. The RIAA assumes that they'll understand the implicit deal whereby buying music on CD pays for the other eleventy ways that they can listen to it. Well, good luck to 'em. They'll need it.