Thanks elford. And I thought the point of pirating commercial music was to enjoy the music, not to stick it to the RIAA for the sake of sticking it to the RIAA.
Whoa, the RIAA does not have a monopoly on music, as your comparisons both had antitrust action taken against them. What about the independent labels, and direct marketing over the Internet? What inalienable right to free or cheap music is the RIAA preventing you from enjoying?
And how exactly do you justify breaking a law that you think is unjust, anyway?
Yeah, I totally agree that intellectual property law has its faults. There are lots of other examples for which I won't pretend to have answers or easy fixes. For example, how many people can join me for a "movie night" in my dorm before it becomes illegal? 5? 50? 100 with a $2 cover "for the food"?
But at least personally, I don't feel shafted as a consumer. I see the grey area of IP law as a bearable pain which is necessary to allow the creative industries to continue to provide me with their content, as they would not do so without the protection they get. If the law became too Gestapo, I would be too uncomfortable and paranoid to buy their products. If it were too lenient, they wouldn't be willing to create them in the first place. I don't think any sweeping change in IP law will fill in all these nooks and crannies... best to deal with them case-by-case like we do now.
Specifically regarding DeCSS, I do feel that the source code to allow you to play the DVD should be protected by the First Amendment-- but that the illegal trading of MPAA property over the Internet should be prohibited instead. This is something I haven't seen brought up in the case. The RIAA has no problem with MP3 as a format, and is going after the piracy at the point of distribution. I don't see why the MPAA can't follow suit. Perhaps they're trying every tactic they can, and will focus on distribution if they lose the DeCSS case.
Thanks though, I do feel assured that I am not the only/. reader against IP theft... it's strange though, my original post stays at +1 after two hours while its anti-RIAA equivalents shoot up to 3 and higher almost immediately. Go figure:)
You're saying that stealing from a company is OK if you think it overcharges and treats its suppliers badly? That thieves are really moral enforcers?
The music industry is tough, and I'm glad artists have the Internet as an alternative to going through the RIAA... it may force the RIAA to treat them better. But that's no justification for stealing on our parts.
I can't be sure but it seems you're trying to cull some pro-RIAA comments for your report with that last paragraph:)
Anyway, someone explain this to me. A lot of people who use Napster say they use it because the prices are too high. But that is not justification for stealing, which is what you are doing when you don't pay the creators or distributors of the music you are consuming. If it were justification, did all the tens of millions of Napster users shoplift CDs out of stores for the same reason? No, because it's a lot harder to get away with that than it is to download off Napster. But the principles remain the same -- it is still stealing.
The RIAA is a business. Its purpose is to maximize and protect its profits for the service of finding, funding, and distributing music to stores. The prices of CDs come down to simple economics -- they price CDs in a way to maximize their profits. That does not make them evil. That just not give anyone the right to take advantage of their products for $0.
My point is this: if you think CD prices are too high, simply don't by the CDs. The RIAA profits will drop, their economists will crunch the numbers, and prices will fall to the point at which you will buy them again and they will again maximize their profits. That's the way capitalisim is designed to work: if the value you place on your demand for the product is less than the price of the product, you don't buy it. Napster defenders seem to think that they have a right to music, and since the corrupt RIAA is taking advantage of that right for their own gain, it is OK to take the music without any payment. You don't have a right to cheap or free music. It is offered by an industry which capitalizes upon your demand, but you're not forced to find a way to consume what they offer. Do you steal name brand toiletries from the drug store when you think $17.99 is too much to pay for them?
I'm a Linux nerd and a/. reader, but I'm also starting a career on the other side of the fence (as a filmmaker), and I shudder to think that the result of years of my hard work and enormus personal resources could be enjoyed by everyone reading this with no more than a few mouse clicks and without any compensation for me whatsoever. It's great that open source offers a free alternative to parts of the software industry, but does that make warez of commercial software morally and legally defensible? Why do we assume that we have as much of a right to steal and enjoy commercial music as we do to write and enjoy non-commerical software?
I'm glad the law caught up to Napster and hope that we can find a way to prohibit music theft without outlawing P2P for files in the public domain.
By the way, the local UPN affiliate here just aired the "Descent" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Early on, the Borg attack a planet in the "M.S." star system. Heh, someone over there must read/.
A lot of people's rants so far have hinged on the fact that Amtrak is a federally funded operation.
In fact, after decades of reliance, a fed up Congress mandated a few years ago that Amtrak become completely self-reliant by 2003. There's no need to write your congressperson to cut Amtrak funding; it's about to happen anyway.
Acela, and possibly this DEA arrangement, are ways in which they are striving to meet that deadline with some success.
A separate, commerical common sense project is called CYC. It's been going since 1984 but is just starting to scratch the surface of the encyclopedia. It's incredible how dependencies can get you: for instance, you can't program what an aardvark is without also going into what it means to be a mammal, the geography of Africa, basic anatomical pieces, and behavioral traits -- all of which have their own dependencies, and so on. (Don't quote me on that though, "dependencies" probably isn't the right word.)
Here is the link to CYC, an interesting read about knowledge representation. It's also pretty timely, since they are about to release some of the project after 17 years of development. Might make a good story.
By the way, how many people posting now are from Australia? My sympathies for any other -500 students whose homework also kept 'em up tonight.
It just occurred to me, how many departments does slashdot HAVE? I've seen hundred and hundreds already. Where do you find managers and resources for an operation that large?
I assume you're addressing the FCC and not me... I agree that the historical importance of the film warrants both the violence and the nudity and draw little distinction between the two here.
I believe the FCC agrees also, but focused on the nudity in the policy statement, since it is presented in contrast to many examples of indecent uses of nudity.
I'm not sure what you mean by Schindler's List = GOOD. When it aired on NBC uncut, it had a lot of material that was only not censored because of the historical importance of the film. For example, Goeth curses left and right, even though the FCC statement promises to uphold the Supreme Court decision that obscene language can not be broadcasted at any time. I'd rather label the move as an "exception."
On the other hand, it's kind of funny to see something as uptight as the FCC release an official document with phrases like "now that she sucked my d*** and Tony fsck you in the a**".
On the third hand, one wonders why I censor myself on this public forum while quoting the FCC:)
"The idea is moving more toward a Maxim magazine model... softer, (with) more context around the content," said Kremen. "We're working on a deal (for content on)... sex education, disease prevention, women's oriented stuff, stuff that you normally don't see in the (adult) space. And we're doing it because we think we can make money at it."
In other news, (a former) U.S. President made history with these words: "Ask... what your country can do for you, (not) what you can do for your country."
Reached for comment, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "Alcatel has a full range of products and services for service providers of all types, enterprises both large and small, and users at home or on the road."
Either you're april fooling us or you're unaware that the Earth's rotation actually IS slowing. It may or may not be from missles and dams, but whatever the cause, this is why we have to add one or two leap seconds to every year.
It doesn't matter whether the people in the voyager episode "really" died according to the final star trek timeline. We still experienced their deaths and the experience cannot be revoked. So yes, depending on the sizes of varoius populations, the episode (entitled "Year of Hell") would depict more deaths (though that's not how I define violence anyway). Don't forget the stuff that got blowed up real good in Generations.
Correction: It should have read, Katz would not know Timothy's passwords by taking over his body. I guess there's a soul/body/intelligence distinction going on, and Katz only messed with the soul.
I don't understand the whole body/soul excuse. Presumably the author is providing an excuse for knowing Jon Katz's slashdot "codes", but wouldn't that mean that the codes are contained somewhere in the body like the tattoos in the guy from "Memento"? or else why wouldn't the author just retain the codes he knows... being editor's codes, good enough:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks elford. And I thought the point of pirating commercial music was to enjoy the music, not to stick it to the RIAA for the sake of sticking it to the RIAA.
--------------------------------
Whoa, the RIAA does not have a monopoly on music, as your comparisons both had antitrust action taken against them. What about the independent labels, and direct marketing over the Internet? What inalienable right to free or cheap music is the RIAA preventing you from enjoying?
And how exactly do you justify breaking a law that you think is unjust, anyway?
--------------------------------
Yeah, I totally agree that intellectual property law has its faults. There are lots of other examples for which I won't pretend to have answers or easy fixes. For example, how many people can join me for a "movie night" in my dorm before it becomes illegal? 5? 50? 100 with a $2 cover "for the food"?
/. reader against IP theft... it's strange though, my original post stays at +1 after two hours while its anti-RIAA equivalents shoot up to 3 and higher almost immediately. Go figure :)
But at least personally, I don't feel shafted as a consumer. I see the grey area of IP law as a bearable pain which is necessary to allow the creative industries to continue to provide me with their content, as they would not do so without the protection they get. If the law became too Gestapo, I would be too uncomfortable and paranoid to buy their products. If it were too lenient, they wouldn't be willing to create them in the first place. I don't think any sweeping change in IP law will fill in all these nooks and crannies... best to deal with them case-by-case like we do now.
Specifically regarding DeCSS, I do feel that the source code to allow you to play the DVD should be protected by the First Amendment-- but that the illegal trading of MPAA property over the Internet should be prohibited instead. This is something I haven't seen brought up in the case. The RIAA has no problem with MP3 as a format, and is going after the piracy at the point of distribution. I don't see why the MPAA can't follow suit. Perhaps they're trying every tactic they can, and will focus on distribution if they lose the DeCSS case.
Thanks though, I do feel assured that I am not the only
--------------------------------
Oops, I that should have been a reply to the AC post.
--------------------------------
You're saying that stealing from a company is OK if you think it overcharges and treats its suppliers badly? That thieves are really moral enforcers?
The music industry is tough, and I'm glad artists have the Internet as an alternative to going through the RIAA... it may force the RIAA to treat them better. But that's no justification for stealing on our parts.
--------------------------------
If that's how you feel about the RIAA, by all means stop purchasing their products... but that doesn't give you the right to steal them.
I'm glad you want to compensate artists, but what about the services of finding, funding, distributing, and marketing them?
--------------------------------
I can't be sure but it seems you're trying to cull some pro-RIAA comments for your report with that last paragraph :)
/. reader, but I'm also starting a career on the other side of the fence (as a filmmaker), and I shudder to think that the result of years of my hard work and enormus personal resources could be enjoyed by everyone reading this with no more than a few mouse clicks and without any compensation for me whatsoever. It's great that open source offers a free alternative to parts of the software industry, but does that make warez of commercial software morally and legally defensible? Why do we assume that we have as much of a right to steal and enjoy commercial music as we do to write and enjoy non-commerical software?
Anyway, someone explain this to me. A lot of people who use Napster say they use it because the prices are too high. But that is not justification for stealing, which is what you are doing when you don't pay the creators or distributors of the music you are consuming. If it were justification, did all the tens of millions of Napster users shoplift CDs out of stores for the same reason? No, because it's a lot harder to get away with that than it is to download off Napster. But the principles remain the same -- it is still stealing.
The RIAA is a business. Its purpose is to maximize and protect its profits for the service of finding, funding, and distributing music to stores. The prices of CDs come down to simple economics -- they price CDs in a way to maximize their profits. That does not make them evil. That just not give anyone the right to take advantage of their products for $0.
My point is this: if you think CD prices are too high, simply don't by the CDs. The RIAA profits will drop, their economists will crunch the numbers, and prices will fall to the point at which you will buy them again and they will again maximize their profits. That's the way capitalisim is designed to work: if the value you place on your demand for the product is less than the price of the product, you don't buy it. Napster defenders seem to think that they have a right to music, and since the corrupt RIAA is taking advantage of that right for their own gain, it is OK to take the music without any payment. You don't have a right to cheap or free music. It is offered by an industry which capitalizes upon your demand, but you're not forced to find a way to consume what they offer. Do you steal name brand toiletries from the drug store when you think $17.99 is too much to pay for them?
I'm a Linux nerd and a
I'm glad the law caught up to Napster and hope that we can find a way to prohibit music theft without outlawing P2P for files in the public domain.
OK, all for now. 'Night all.
--------------------------------
By the way, the local UPN affiliate here just aired the "Descent" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Early on, the Borg attack a planet in the "M.S." star system. Heh, someone over there must read /.
--------------------------------
Next they'll say that its "Illeagle" to use OS/OS's because it robs the companies of making money
That reminds me of a joke. What's the difference between unlawful and illegal?
Unlawful is contrary to the law. Illegal is a sick bird.
--------------------------------
Right, I was being facetious. Woz isn't even in the tech industry any more.
--------------------------------
At Sin City Entertainment in Chatsworth, there's been a veritable casting call of people inquiring about jobs, said spokesman Jeff Wozniak.
Woz, of all people?? Wow, the tech industry is hurt pretty bad.
--------------------------------
A lot of people's rants so far have hinged on the fact that Amtrak is a federally funded operation.
In fact, after decades of reliance, a fed up Congress mandated a few years ago that Amtrak become completely self-reliant by 2003. There's no need to write your congressperson to cut Amtrak funding; it's about to happen anyway.
Acela, and possibly this DEA arrangement, are ways in which they are striving to meet that deadline with some success.
--------------------------------
A separate, commerical common sense project is called CYC. It's been going since 1984 but is just starting to scratch the surface of the encyclopedia. It's incredible how dependencies can get you: for instance, you can't program what an aardvark is without also going into what it means to be a mammal, the geography of Africa, basic anatomical pieces, and behavioral traits -- all of which have their own dependencies, and so on. (Don't quote me on that though, "dependencies" probably isn't the right word.)
Here is the link to CYC, an interesting read about knowledge representation. It's also pretty timely, since they are about to release some of the project after 17 years of development. Might make a good story.
By the way, how many people posting now are from Australia? My sympathies for any other -500 students whose homework also kept 'em up tonight.
--------------------------------
It just occurred to me, how many departments does slashdot HAVE? I've seen hundred and hundreds already. Where do you find managers and resources for an operation that large?
--------------------------------
I assume you're addressing the FCC and not me... I agree that the historical importance of the film warrants both the violence and the nudity and draw little distinction between the two here.
I believe the FCC agrees also, but focused on the nudity in the policy statement, since it is presented in contrast to many examples of indecent uses of nudity.
--------------------------------
Just to clarify, the statement mentions the dismissal of the nudity, but that doesn't make it "good."
--------------------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by Schindler's List = GOOD. When it aired on NBC uncut, it had a lot of material that was only not censored because of the historical importance of the film. For example, Goeth curses left and right, even though the FCC statement promises to uphold the Supreme Court decision that obscene language can not be broadcasted at any time. I'd rather label the move as an "exception."
:)
On the other hand, it's kind of funny to see something as uptight as the FCC release an official document with phrases like "now that she sucked my d*** and Tony fsck you in the a**".
On the third hand, one wonders why I censor myself on this public forum while quoting the FCC
--------------------------------
"The idea is moving more toward a Maxim magazine model ... softer, (with) more context around the content," said Kremen. "We're working on a deal (for content on) ... sex education, disease prevention, women's oriented stuff, stuff that you normally don't see in the (adult) space. And we're doing it because we think we can make money at it."
... what your country can do for you, (not) what you can do for your country."
In other news, (a former) U.S. President made history with these words: "Ask
Reached for comment, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "Alcatel has a full range of products and services for service providers of all types, enterprises both large and small, and users at home or on the road."
--------------------------------
Salieri writes, "Ever notice how it's sometimes very difficult to tell which is the real or relevant link in the article write-up? Perhaps the editors can distinguish where the main attraction is." He then clicks preview to make sure the links work.
--------------------------------
Either you're april fooling us or you're unaware that the Earth's rotation actually IS slowing. It may or may not be from missles and dams, but whatever the cause, this is why we have to add one or two leap seconds to every year.
--------------------------------
It doesn't matter whether the people in the voyager episode "really" died according to the final star trek timeline. We still experienced their deaths and the experience cannot be revoked. So yes, depending on the sizes of varoius populations, the episode (entitled "Year of Hell") would depict more deaths (though that's not how I define violence anyway). Don't forget the stuff that got blowed up real good in Generations.
--------------------------------
Correction: It should have read, Katz would not know Timothy's passwords by taking over his body. I guess there's a soul/body/intelligence distinction going on, and Katz only messed with the soul.
--------------------------------
I don't understand the whole body/soul excuse. Presumably the author is providing an excuse for knowing Jon Katz's slashdot "codes", but wouldn't that mean that the codes are contained somewhere in the body like the tattoos in the guy from "Memento"? or else why wouldn't the author just retain the codes he knows... being editor's codes, good enough :)
--------------------------------
All I can say is, this thing I'm hearing about losing an hour of sleep tonight for "Day Lite Savings" had better be another april fools joke.
--------------------------------
Macintosh: Think Different, But Please Not That Different
--------------------------------