++ insightful. Thanks for taking the time to actually read the license, which is, incidentally, precisely a buttload shorter than most other comparable licenses offered by online US only vendors, and no different from any of them in substance (i.e. USA ++good, everyone else ++ungood).
If you want genuine competition among suppliers of a service, you can't have one of the suppliers running the infrastructure that the service is supplied over. Public infrastructure should be owned by and run for the benefit of the public, not for the profit of one particular user of it.
Welcome to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Now A Wholly Owned Subsiduary of Ford Motor Co. Inc. $2 Surcharge Per Axle for Non Ford Vehicles.
Would we tolerate that? Well, the Bell network is little different, it's just less blatant.
No, wait, I don't live in the USA, so I guess I do. Control freak fucknuts. They'd rather lose money than admit that regional barriers and regional licensing are farcical in an online context.
That's true, there was this one time that me and my buddies Dick, John, Colin and Paul decided to invade Iraq, and before we knew it, 140,000 other people were joining in. Man, we laughed about that.
>mob mentality thinking it's ok to disrupt everybody's life because you're pissed at the world.
Mob mentality also involves assuming that everyone (who matters) thinks like you. CM rides disrupt drivers because they are pissed off at drivers. Drivers - as CM rides so very clearly show - aren't the whole world.
You're right that it serves no purpose and that it's inefficient. So, when did we become robots? Go back to Soviet Russia, comrade, your groupthink will be very welcome there. M'yeah.
Yes, they really need to get the terms correct. If the copy right is the property, then stealing that means that I've stolen the copy right, not the protected content. If the content in the property, then how can I steal it if the creator still has it?
The whole tone is "well, it's just wrong, and we need to make examples of people to publicize that". Well, it ain't just wrong, asserts I. I assert that it's wrong to rip off a creator that is retaining control of their work and trying to distribute it to the public while asking for fair compensation for so doing. But I assert that when the only option is to support a cartel that operates to restrict distribution, or to breach the copy rights that the creator assigned to them in the hope of making profit, then, well, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em with big dogs. That's not exactly a legal statement, but then neither is "[promoting] the progress of sciences and useful arts".
It is the job of the DoJ to hand out justice, not pre-judgement. Look at the number of uses of "theft" in the replies. Criminal copyright violation, yes. "Theft" is editorial.
In a democracy, we'd have to go to the expense of counting the actual votes. In our brave Republic, our leaders save our tax money by deciding in advance who will win and how many votes they'll get, so we can get back to our bread and circuses. God save the Ki- President!
I guess the FBI and NSA will be tripping over each other to get DirectTV's list of people who've bought card programmers. Last week you were just a potential thief. This week, you're a potential anarcho-terrorist.
Copy right was intended as a tool to achieve a goal. The explicit goal was to encourage creators to make their work available to the public, by allowing them to profit from it. The profit is the tool, not the goal.
So, at what point did US.gov forget that? When exactly did it become a crime to "steal" that potential profit, rather than a crime to run cartels that operate to keep creator and recipient apart and to keep that work exactly as expensive as the market will bear? Hmm?
That doesn't show it at all, it's just yet more supposition based on a bizarre assumption that spam is actually targetted.
All that it shows is that 37% of removal requests are respected, which is a hell of a lot more than I'd have expected. We're talking about replying to spam that's already been received. I'd be interested to know what happens if you create virgin accounts and try and unsubscribe to spam lists that you're not already on, but that's a different question.
Thanks for the link though, it demonstrates that this assumption runs deep.
No evidence then? Didn't think so. I accept that proactively touching a remove me list would usually get you added to it, but we're talking about replying to spam that's already arrived and making it worse. I don't see how you could make it worse. If you actually have evidence of this, please share it.
>Why not just say, "Na na na na na" and get it over with?
Socrates wants to know your opinion on the best method to teach people. Do you learn better by being fed facts, or by being challenged to discover and question?
I ask because I'm old enough to remember when automation was viewed as the invention that would free us from the drudgery of grunt work, not the one that would bifurcate society. It's the ultimate dream of capitalism: cut the cost of production to the point where it's not worth a human's time to do it. Eventually (although we didn't like to put it like this), we'd be so labour rich that we would reach a socialist utopia via the back door.
Call me a crusty old curmudgeon, but every time I read "problem" in this article, I substitute "opportunity". Sure, maybe all those burger flippers are just going to go on welfare, but that doesn't mean that they have to lie around in trailer parks watching Oprah. Maybe some of them will go on to paint, or write, or sculpt, or grow and barter organic produce locally, or play music gigs at the mall, or help out disabled kids, or just plant trees and pick up trash because they want to and they have the time to do it. Not all of them, for sure, but hopefully enough to make life better for everyone.
I do think that we need to prepare for that future though. Specifically, we need to devolve power to local levels so that local needs can be met. We need to assert and accept that paying taxes to fund welfare and civic programs is more efficient than paying riot cops to suppress hungry, angry, hopeless people. We need to get it through our heads that working 12 hours a day to afford consumer toys that we don't need isn't a good use of our lives.
Oh, and we need to have a look at history. Students will note that emancipation for the peasant classes in Europe coincided with sharp population decreases after outbreaks of bubonic plague. Labour became short, populations become mobile, and the feudal system broke down as landowners became answerable to their workers rather than vice versa. With a glut of available labour and no jobs to go around, we are in danger of re-creating feudal baronies for the 21st century. Anglo-Saxons sold themselves into slavery during hard times, trading freedom for security. If you've read an employment contract recently, you might be wondering if we've come so very far since then.
It's a delicate balancing act. Capitalism demonstrably generates wealth for all. But if we let it get out of hand, it might make us rich and enslaved rather than comfortable and free. Some might say that it's already too late, and that we're doomed to a future of doffing our caps as our overlords zoom overhead in their robot piloted flying cars. I'm hoping that we go down a different route and accept that distributing wealth isn't just a failed communist experiment, or a crackpot liberal scheme to reward the shiftless, but instead a way of freeing up nascent talent that's currently (and increasingly) sitting around producing nothing.
Is that when two companies that actually make things square up to each other, they generally compare the height of their stacks of patents, and the one with the smaller pile pays some money to the one with the bigger pile, then they both get back to doing productive things.
In this case, Microsoft has no leverage. InterTrust, like SCO, has no business except pursuing patents. They can shut Microsoft down, and the only thing that Microsoft can buy them off with is obscene sums of money, or (shudder) ownership of more patents.
You can't negotiate with an opponent when the only options they have are to win a crushing victory or to go out of business. And if they win, well, then they need to do it again. And again. They're like zombies. They'll just keep coming, eating brains and moaning. You can't reason with them, you can't bargain with them, you just have to aim for the head and hope for the best.
Why? Not by analogy or extension, cite the book or case law that supports this statement. I know there is one, but I'm betting that you don't know what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
++ insightful. Thanks for taking the time to actually read the license, which is, incidentally, precisely a buttload shorter than most other comparable licenses offered by online US only vendors, and no different from any of them in substance (i.e. USA ++good, everyone else ++ungood).
If you want genuine competition among suppliers of a service, you can't have one of the suppliers running the infrastructure that the service is supplied over. Public infrastructure should be owned by and run for the benefit of the public, not for the profit of one particular user of it.
Welcome to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Now A Wholly Owned Subsiduary of Ford Motor Co. Inc. $2 Surcharge Per Axle for Non Ford Vehicles.
Would we tolerate that? Well, the Bell network is little different, it's just less blatant.
Specifically:
Seems to me like there's a metric buttload of questions to be answered before we can have anything like a reasoned debate on this.
Tell me, how many times did you ejaculate while writing this? Better clean up quick, I can hear your mom coming down the basement stairs.
Buy the new Ford Destructor: now 25% more lethal!
I can see a slight difference between a tool and a weapon. Yeah, a handgun is a tool for hunting pigeons. Sure it is.
Criminal case == assumption of innocence until proved otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.
Civil case == no assumption either way, the case is decided on balance of probability.
The ignorance of this basic difference is staggering.
No, wait, I don't live in the USA, so I guess I do. Control freak fucknuts. They'd rather lose money than admit that regional barriers and regional licensing are farcical in an online context.
That's true, there was this one time that me and my buddies Dick, John, Colin and Paul decided to invade Iraq, and before we knew it, 140,000 other people were joining in. Man, we laughed about that.
>mob mentality thinking it's ok to disrupt everybody's life because you're pissed at the world.
Mob mentality also involves assuming that everyone (who matters) thinks like you. CM rides disrupt drivers because they are pissed off at drivers. Drivers - as CM rides so very clearly show - aren't the whole world.
You're right that it serves no purpose and that it's inefficient. So, when did we become robots? Go back to Soviet Russia, comrade, your groupthink will be very welcome there. M'yeah.
No they aren't. Gosh, isn't flat assertion fun?
What's more fun is providing references. You have no constitutionally protected rights in a mall, not even your first amendment rights.
Yes, they really need to get the terms correct. If the copy right is the property, then stealing that means that I've stolen the copy right, not the protected content. If the content in the property, then how can I steal it if the creator still has it?
The whole tone is "well, it's just wrong, and we need to make examples of people to publicize that". Well, it ain't just wrong, asserts I. I assert that it's wrong to rip off a creator that is retaining control of their work and trying to distribute it to the public while asking for fair compensation for so doing. But I assert that when the only option is to support a cartel that operates to restrict distribution, or to breach the copy rights that the creator assigned to them in the hope of making profit, then, well, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em with big dogs. That's not exactly a legal statement, but then neither is "[promoting] the progress of sciences and useful arts".
It is the job of the DoJ to hand out justice, not pre-judgement. Look at the number of uses of "theft" in the replies. Criminal copyright violation, yes. "Theft" is editorial.
In a democracy, we'd have to go to the expense of counting the actual votes. In our brave Republic, our leaders save our tax money by deciding in advance who will win and how many votes they'll get, so we can get back to our bread and circuses. God save the Ki- President!
I guess the FBI and NSA will be tripping over each other to get DirectTV's list of people who've bought card programmers. Last week you were just a potential thief. This week, you're a potential anarcho-terrorist.
Meh. No answers to the big issue:
Copy right was intended as a tool to achieve a goal. The explicit goal was to encourage creators to make their work available to the public, by allowing them to profit from it. The profit is the tool, not the goal.
So, at what point did US.gov forget that? When exactly did it become a crime to "steal" that potential profit, rather than a crime to run cartels that operate to keep creator and recipient apart and to keep that work exactly as expensive as the market will bear? Hmm?
That doesn't show it at all, it's just yet more supposition based on a bizarre assumption that spam is actually targetted.
All that it shows is that 37% of removal requests are respected, which is a hell of a lot more than I'd have expected. We're talking about replying to spam that's already been received. I'd be interested to know what happens if you create virgin accounts and try and unsubscribe to spam lists that you're not already on, but that's a different question.
Thanks for the link though, it demonstrates that this assumption runs deep.
No evidence then? Didn't think so. I accept that proactively touching a remove me list would usually get you added to it, but we're talking about replying to spam that's already arrived and making it worse. I don't see how you could make it worse. If you actually have evidence of this, please share it.
>Why not just say, "Na na na na na" and get it over with?
Socrates wants to know your opinion on the best method to teach people. Do you learn better by being fed facts, or by being challenged to discover and question?
I ask because I'm old enough to remember when automation was viewed as the invention that would free us from the drudgery of grunt work, not the one that would bifurcate society. It's the ultimate dream of capitalism: cut the cost of production to the point where it's not worth a human's time to do it. Eventually (although we didn't like to put it like this), we'd be so labour rich that we would reach a socialist utopia via the back door.
Call me a crusty old curmudgeon, but every time I read "problem" in this article, I substitute "opportunity". Sure, maybe all those burger flippers are just going to go on welfare, but that doesn't mean that they have to lie around in trailer parks watching Oprah. Maybe some of them will go on to paint, or write, or sculpt, or grow and barter organic produce locally, or play music gigs at the mall, or help out disabled kids, or just plant trees and pick up trash because they want to and they have the time to do it. Not all of them, for sure, but hopefully enough to make life better for everyone.
I do think that we need to prepare for that future though. Specifically, we need to devolve power to local levels so that local needs can be met. We need to assert and accept that paying taxes to fund welfare and civic programs is more efficient than paying riot cops to suppress hungry, angry, hopeless people. We need to get it through our heads that working 12 hours a day to afford consumer toys that we don't need isn't a good use of our lives.
Oh, and we need to have a look at history. Students will note that emancipation for the peasant classes in Europe coincided with sharp population decreases after outbreaks of bubonic plague. Labour became short, populations become mobile, and the feudal system broke down as landowners became answerable to their workers rather than vice versa. With a glut of available labour and no jobs to go around, we are in danger of re-creating feudal baronies for the 21st century. Anglo-Saxons sold themselves into slavery during hard times, trading freedom for security. If you've read an employment contract recently, you might be wondering if we've come so very far since then.
It's a delicate balancing act. Capitalism demonstrably generates wealth for all. But if we let it get out of hand, it might make us rich and enslaved rather than comfortable and free. Some might say that it's already too late, and that we're doomed to a future of doffing our caps as our overlords zoom overhead in their robot piloted flying cars. I'm hoping that we go down a different route and accept that distributing wealth isn't just a failed communist experiment, or a crackpot liberal scheme to reward the shiftless, but instead a way of freeing up nascent talent that's currently (and increasingly) sitting around producing nothing.
Hell, I think Slashdot should run this story as a headline as it is. Twice.
I'd agree with you that's better to whine about it than to try and change it, but I'm too apathemmumble.
What did you complain about, exactly? "SCO are evil" doesn't exactly distinguish them from any other IP heavy corp.
Is that when two companies that actually make things square up to each other, they generally compare the height of their stacks of patents, and the one with the smaller pile pays some money to the one with the bigger pile, then they both get back to doing productive things.
In this case, Microsoft has no leverage. InterTrust, like SCO, has no business except pursuing patents. They can shut Microsoft down, and the only thing that Microsoft can buy them off with is obscene sums of money, or (shudder) ownership of more patents.
You can't negotiate with an opponent when the only options they have are to win a crushing victory or to go out of business. And if they win, well, then they need to do it again. And again. They're like zombies. They'll just keep coming, eating brains and moaning. You can't reason with them, you can't bargain with them, you just have to aim for the head and hope for the best.
>Copying the song to OGG or MP3 is fair use.
Why? Not by analogy or extension, cite the book or case law that supports this statement. I know there is one, but I'm betting that you don't know what it is.
I am Osama bin Copyright Terrorist. And so's my wife.