There is in the USA, however, compulsory licensing that allows "cover songs" without the explicit consent of the writer.
Where's that sense of level-headedness and compromise today? (Actually, I shouldn't say that, as I don't know if it was level-headed compromise or what all led to compulsory licensing. Does anyone know a good book or website detailing the decisions, thoughts, and predominant opinions behind that law when it was created? I'd be interested.)
I've been on the unpopular side of issues on here (pro-Copyright... anyone?), and it's not so much a matter of unpopular opinions getting the instant downmod, as much as the unpopular opinions not having the strength to rebound or gain support by nature of being cliche, badly-written, poorly supported, or over-assuming. I'll admit, a popular opinion may not have to work as hard, but if you post an unpopular opinion expressed fully and eloquently, with legitimate arguments that avoid common pitfalls, chances are it'll be either upmodded, or, at worst, initially downmodded then re-upped by more level-headed mods.
In this instance, it's just the matter that the "damn SUV drivers" shout has become overworn. Perhaps it is true, but it has no motive action. Firstly, it's been overdone into the ground and is just cliched claptrap ten times over. I'll grant that's no reason to keep a good idea down, but it helps.
The argument is also, by virtue of nature and of common use, seen as simple confrontation and snark. The anti-SUV sentiment really has evolved to become more of a slogan, an emblem, of a certain breed of environmentalist argument. Too many people waving the anti-SUV banner just throw it in the face of "the enemy" in simplest form, not taking into account the obvious nuances, like how a new SUV can be more efficient than an old car, or the question of "I already own it, what the hell'm I supposed to do?" At this point, it's not an argument, it's just a brand that can easily be used to shrug people off as "eco-nuts" or "gas-guzzling assholes".
The anti-SUV argument, as legitimate as it may or may not be, has little to no use as a tool for dialogue or change. The people who do little more than shout the same tired arguments will (and in my opinion, should) continue to be "modded down" until they realize that legitimate calls to action must not only be correct, but must be palatable to the recipient, both in substance and delivery. Nobody's going to just discard a multi-thousand-dollar machine. Likewise, it's been shown over and over again that status-seekers and frightened suburbanites consistently behave as they do... they buy trendy SUVs. It should be obvious that a "Stop buying SUV's, you assholes!" course of argument is futile. It only clouds the waters and solidifies disagreements, and it doesn't even do it in a novel way.
Hence, downmods.
(I'm not even talking in regards to the GPP and this specific case, but I do seem to see a lot of this "Slashdot Groupthink is killing unpopular opinions" talk.)
It might still be a problem, but I don't think it's nearly as big as people are making out. Sure, we could all cite examples one way or another, but I think there're enough banks and such out there that do support all modern browsers, that it's not hard to find one that does (Unless, of course, you're in a small town that only has "Communtity Bank of Nowheresville"). I'd consider my bank to be ragingly incompetent, and probably end up switching, if I found that their online banking wasn't all-browser (plus SSL) compatible.
but lets get real, no one will remotely crash the browser just for shits and giggles because it's just dumb and a waste of time.
You underestimate the shits-and-giggles deficit, especially among the script-kiddie twit crowd. #2,000 or "Press Alt-F4 to Download" on IRC ring a bell?
I'm not sure that I like the idea of state regulation of access to the Internet, with licensing of computers and Internet access (along the lines of licensing of cars and driving licences), testing to ensure competence and regulation of traffic across national borders, but it might be the only way to promote responsible computer use.
It doesn't need to be government. The "abuse@" system for ISP (usually? sometimes?) fulfills that role.
You're right. I think it's really evolved to "buzz" and "killer apps", making games a signature as opposed to characters. I know I've heard one or two people who say that they want an XBox for the sole purpose of Halo, for instance.
Actually, I end up having a problem earler: Nothing's wrong until I run out of clothes.
I need some RFID chips and a sewing machine. Run a reader over the lot (previously inventoried and catalogued, of course) and find out how many decent outfits I have left. If a significant amount ends up in the "dirty" side, send me an email. Of course, that doesn't work well with the "once-used but servicable" clothing state, but I'm sure something can be done to work around that.
Like the person who got here first said: It's a nonissue. It's like trying to take on McDonalds in burgers. It was a good idea when it started, it had the magic mix to get popular, and now it's entrenched. Assuming no outside difficulties, it's either going to continue to languish with its core crowd (like LiveJournal... let's watch the emokids grow up!) or end up toppling of its own stagnation sometime down the line. It would take not only a "MySpace Killer" clone to come along, but also a massive failure in a number of respects on their part.
You're better off thinking up the next Flickr, YouTube, Google Video, or Google (et al) Maps remix, or more likely, the next next big thing.
Really, I think the next big hit is going to be in popularizing either music or video. Podcasting, as a whole, was close, but it took off more as a movement unto itself than anything centered around one particular place (plus, I think iTunes kind of Microsofted a lot of developers).
We've found some interesting things in your account... nicknamed "Anonymous Coward"? Appearantly it seems all you do is sit around all day and post on this "Slashdot" site. Although you do have the honorable distinction of being responsible for much, if not all, of the disruptive behavior on such a large social website, we at Omni-Megacorp don't really feel that that distinction helps your position in getting this job.
The only problem I see in your argument is non-transferability. If you prohibit transfer, the copyright becomes economically worthless, or at least much more difficult to use. That which cannot be transferred cannot be sold. Of course, perhaps (probably, I think) I'm reading you wrong as to what you mean by transferability.
Get with the times. It's "intellectual property" now. Copyright is less and less seen as a granted right, and more as a security for the intellectual property "owned" by creators. The rulings on the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act (Congress saying "forever minus a day" is still a "limited term") have pretty much shot up the ability to constitutionally argue against copyright legislation.
That portion (and the Commerce Clause... did you read the ruling regarding medical marijuana in California a while back? Wha'?!?) have gotten so beaten, stretched, and diluted that Congress can interpret any ol' way that suits them, and the Court just caves at the most obtuse applications.
BTW I've already posted were I stand on the issue, which I'm happy to say is mostly contrary to the modded up groupthink around here.:)
I agree with the points you make regarding the motivations and reasons for legislation like the DMCA and the like, but there's just far too much overkill stuffed in new legislation.
New copyright legislation is burdened with overarching restrictions that unduly take away the rights that people legally (or should I say "historically" at this point?) have had in regards to using, modifying, and building upon technologies and content which they legitimately paid for.
In true political fashion, the legislators just carpet-bombed when they should have been carefully crafting. Instead of taking the time to carve out legislation that illegalized Napster but allowed DVD decryption, they just dropped a blanket-statement down that made it illegal to, for instance, publish reverse-engineered findings about how to write a software DVD player. Oh, and I'm not naive: I'm sure industry finagling, (as well as unspecialized ignorance of the finer points and time/efficiency restraints) has a lot to do with passing these laws.
Additionally, I think much of the problem with The Copyright Fight is the extreme polar outcomes presented. If you're for copyright protection, you're on the side of the DMCA and idiotically unrealistic damages in lawsuits. If you're against copyright protection, you're on the side of wholesale uncreative all-media-piracy. The battle is so heated that more realistic and moderate solutions are drowned out. The compromises from piano-roll publishers and music writers, or between cable providers and local TV stations are positive examples of rational moderation. I'd say compulsory licensing probably isn't the answer in this case (the other cases were a more controllable B2B environment... throw individual consumers in there and it gets a bit more hairy), but my point is that the sides are treating this like an all out war, as opposed to examining the issue and coming up with a real solution, instead of overarching patch-job legislation and restriction of rights.
As you might note in my sig, I share the sentiments against the practitioners of flimsily-defended illegal infringement, and I'm in favor of the rights of content producers to have some control to offset the lack of tangibility and easy reproductive costs of their craft. However, just because there is copyright infringement, the government should not be taking away a consumer's non-infringing rights by virtue of their peripheral relatedness.
(And mentioning "groupthink" is just irrelevant name-calling, and, IMO, it just sounds petty. I've found that most fleshed-out, legitimate arguments do get positive modding and agreement (or counterargument, if they're flawed), even if it's against the imagined "Slashdot Groupthink" party line.)
It's like watching dogs fight over scraps. All the issues are so close and meaningless, it's more a race to see who can "own" a righteous stand on a certain particular issue than it is of holding to a political ideology. The scary part is that as the whole mess just becomes more and more absurd, the political system becomes more and more of a laughingstock, it just diverts attention away from the fact that these clowns we're all laughing at are still writing their papers and making their votes on things that actually affect people's lives.
Adding to that, media consolidation and long-distance mass communication have replaced important (but boring) small news about things we could/should deal with with National News: overwhelming and personally unimportant (but exciting) big news about things that no one can actually do anything about and doesn't really matter. We end up fighting over Presidents that are little more than a PR face, while just check-marking the incumbent for the local seats that actually get things done. And, yes, I'll admit, I do it myself (although I don't vote on people/issues I don't know... I just leave it blank).
Y'know, I never thought about it that way. (Actually, I never really considered the question at all, but I never really would have considered that.) That makes me wonder if the selection is actually a bias, or more of a "market segmentation".
You did... y'know... read the article, right? A little bit?
The only thing this story has to do with network computing is the fact that (one of) the incompetents involved happened to be connecting a network to a computer.
Perhaps, but this isn't the one to fight it on, by a long shot. In the case of "Idiot loses script, has no backups, looks for someone to blame." there isn't really much evidence that the corp's overpowering influence unfairly made (or was even needed to make) this case.
I always found Compuserve to be better. Their install set had 6 disks if you got the Mac version. I got up to having a UPS box full delivered when my parents cut me off.
I'd venture that anyone with the computer abilities to need Photoshop and Nero 6 Ultra are going to be either smart enough to find the firewall, the anti-spyware, and the CD rip/conv/tag program for free/low-cost, or have enough money to just buy what they need. The people buying these low-cost machines will end up with an OEM version of Windows, and probably something along the lines of Microsoft Works, and possibly Word as well. For most folks buying the $300 PCs, that would do them fine.
As for it not being "stealing". Fine. Call it copyright infringement. There's still the question: If you didn't write it, and you didn't have anything to do with writing it, what gives you any right to have any say as to how it's distributed.
The fact that you're whining about prices instead of announcing your new "Office-killer" makes me think that you don't have the time, initiative, or ability to write a suitable office suite. Likewise with an anti-virus program or a professional-grade image editor. If I'm wrong, and you do, I invite you to start coding. Otherwise, continue providing whatever other specialized and valuable service you can, then participate in the system of trade that's been set up to deal with such inabilities. With your own work done and cash in hand, you may now choose to accept what deals they offer, or to walk away if you feel that the product is not worth the price.
Of course, I'm not saying that you can't just copy the software. Yes, you do have the ability to do that, just as you have the ability to sneak out of the restaurant and stiff the staff. Just don't act so righteous about the whole thing, and don't get indignant when the people actually creating those things you want exert their ownership, by either legal or technical means. (Yes, I agree that they can and do go overboard in the means of exerting their ownership, and that's a point to debate on.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is in the USA, however, compulsory licensing that allows "cover songs" without the explicit consent of the writer.
Where's that sense of level-headedness and compromise today? (Actually, I shouldn't say that, as I don't know if it was level-headed compromise or what all led to compulsory licensing. Does anyone know a good book or website detailing the decisions, thoughts, and predominant opinions behind that law when it was created? I'd be interested.)
I've been on the unpopular side of issues on here (pro-Copyright... anyone?), and it's not so much a matter of unpopular opinions getting the instant downmod, as much as the unpopular opinions not having the strength to rebound or gain support by nature of being cliche, badly-written, poorly supported, or over-assuming. I'll admit, a popular opinion may not have to work as hard, but if you post an unpopular opinion expressed fully and eloquently, with legitimate arguments that avoid common pitfalls, chances are it'll be either upmodded, or, at worst, initially downmodded then re-upped by more level-headed mods.
In this instance, it's just the matter that the "damn SUV drivers" shout has become overworn. Perhaps it is true, but it has no motive action. Firstly, it's been overdone into the ground and is just cliched claptrap ten times over. I'll grant that's no reason to keep a good idea down, but it helps.
The argument is also, by virtue of nature and of common use, seen as simple confrontation and snark. The anti-SUV sentiment really has evolved to become more of a slogan, an emblem, of a certain breed of environmentalist argument. Too many people waving the anti-SUV banner just throw it in the face of "the enemy" in simplest form, not taking into account the obvious nuances, like how a new SUV can be more efficient than an old car, or the question of "I already own it, what the hell'm I supposed to do?" At this point, it's not an argument, it's just a brand that can easily be used to shrug people off as "eco-nuts" or "gas-guzzling assholes".
The anti-SUV argument, as legitimate as it may or may not be, has little to no use as a tool for dialogue or change. The people who do little more than shout the same tired arguments will (and in my opinion, should) continue to be "modded down" until they realize that legitimate calls to action must not only be correct, but must be palatable to the recipient, both in substance and delivery. Nobody's going to just discard a multi-thousand-dollar machine. Likewise, it's been shown over and over again that status-seekers and frightened suburbanites consistently behave as they do... they buy trendy SUVs. It should be obvious that a "Stop buying SUV's, you assholes!" course of argument is futile. It only clouds the waters and solidifies disagreements, and it doesn't even do it in a novel way.
Hence, downmods.
(I'm not even talking in regards to the GPP and this specific case, but I do seem to see a lot of this "Slashdot Groupthink is killing unpopular opinions" talk.)
Nobody is going to wheel a dead guy into the court to elicit sympathy
There's another contingency plan to put in my will, if only for the media circus.
It might still be a problem, but I don't think it's nearly as big as people are making out. Sure, we could all cite examples one way or another, but I think there're enough banks and such out there that do support all modern browsers, that it's not hard to find one that does (Unless, of course, you're in a small town that only has "Communtity Bank of Nowheresville"). I'd consider my bank to be ragingly incompetent, and probably end up switching, if I found that their online banking wasn't all-browser (plus SSL) compatible.
One label with the word "Apple" on it later...
but lets get real, no one will remotely crash the browser just for shits and giggles because it's just dumb and a waste of time.
You underestimate the shits-and-giggles deficit, especially among the script-kiddie twit crowd. #2,000 or "Press Alt-F4 to Download" on IRC ring a bell?
I'm not sure that I like the idea of state regulation of access to the Internet, with licensing of computers and Internet access (along the lines of licensing of cars and driving licences), testing to ensure competence and regulation of traffic across national borders, but it might be the only way to promote responsible computer use.
It doesn't need to be government. The "abuse@" system for ISP (usually? sometimes?) fulfills that role.
You're right. I think it's really evolved to "buzz" and "killer apps", making games a signature as opposed to characters. I know I've heard one or two people who say that they want an XBox for the sole purpose of Halo, for instance.
Actually, I end up having a problem earler: Nothing's wrong until I run out of clothes.
I need some RFID chips and a sewing machine. Run a reader over the lot (previously inventoried and catalogued, of course) and find out how many decent outfits I have left. If a significant amount ends up in the "dirty" side, send me an email. Of course, that doesn't work well with the "once-used but servicable" clothing state, but I'm sure something can be done to work around that.
Like the person who got here first said: It's a nonissue. It's like trying to take on McDonalds in burgers. It was a good idea when it started, it had the magic mix to get popular, and now it's entrenched. Assuming no outside difficulties, it's either going to continue to languish with its core crowd (like LiveJournal... let's watch the emokids grow up!) or end up toppling of its own stagnation sometime down the line. It would take not only a "MySpace Killer" clone to come along, but also a massive failure in a number of respects on their part.
You're better off thinking up the next Flickr, YouTube, Google Video, or Google (et al) Maps remix, or more likely, the next next big thing.
Really, I think the next big hit is going to be in popularizing either music or video. Podcasting, as a whole, was close, but it took off more as a movement unto itself than anything centered around one particular place (plus, I think iTunes kind of Microsofted a lot of developers).
I think a lot of the financial issues could be outlined in some sort of legal document. Something like a "living will" perhaps?
How do you up-date the AV program without logging onto the Internet.
:)
Off a CD from a clean machine.
Just sayin'.
I have a cheap phone with a monochrome screen. I'm in a constant state of outright terror.
It means we go into Emergency Bureaucracy. May God help us all.
We've found some interesting things in your account... nicknamed "Anonymous Coward"? Appearantly it seems all you do is sit around all day and post on this "Slashdot" site. Although you do have the honorable distinction of being responsible for much, if not all, of the disruptive behavior on such a large social website, we at Omni-Megacorp don't really feel that that distinction helps your position in getting this job.
The only problem I see in your argument is non-transferability. If you prohibit transfer, the copyright becomes economically worthless, or at least much more difficult to use. That which cannot be transferred cannot be sold. Of course, perhaps (probably, I think) I'm reading you wrong as to what you mean by transferability.
And yet I, as a human, don't!
Get with the times. It's "intellectual property" now. Copyright is less and less seen as a granted right, and more as a security for the intellectual property "owned" by creators. The rulings on the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act (Congress saying "forever minus a day" is still a "limited term") have pretty much shot up the ability to constitutionally argue against copyright legislation.
That portion (and the Commerce Clause... did you read the ruling regarding medical marijuana in California a while back? Wha'?!?) have gotten so beaten, stretched, and diluted that Congress can interpret any ol' way that suits them, and the Court just caves at the most obtuse applications.
BTW I've already posted were I stand on the issue, which I'm happy to say is mostly contrary to the modded up groupthink around here. :)
I agree with the points you make regarding the motivations and reasons for legislation like the DMCA and the like, but there's just far too much overkill stuffed in new legislation.
New copyright legislation is burdened with overarching restrictions that unduly take away the rights that people legally (or should I say "historically" at this point?) have had in regards to using, modifying, and building upon technologies and content which they legitimately paid for.
In true political fashion, the legislators just carpet-bombed when they should have been carefully crafting. Instead of taking the time to carve out legislation that illegalized Napster but allowed DVD decryption, they just dropped a blanket-statement down that made it illegal to, for instance, publish reverse-engineered findings about how to write a software DVD player. Oh, and I'm not naive: I'm sure industry finagling, (as well as unspecialized ignorance of the finer points and time/efficiency restraints) has a lot to do with passing these laws.
Additionally, I think much of the problem with The Copyright Fight is the extreme polar outcomes presented. If you're for copyright protection, you're on the side of the DMCA and idiotically unrealistic damages in lawsuits. If you're against copyright protection, you're on the side of wholesale uncreative all-media-piracy. The battle is so heated that more realistic and moderate solutions are drowned out. The compromises from piano-roll publishers and music writers, or between cable providers and local TV stations are positive examples of rational moderation. I'd say compulsory licensing probably isn't the answer in this case (the other cases were a more controllable B2B environment... throw individual consumers in there and it gets a bit more hairy), but my point is that the sides are treating this like an all out war, as opposed to examining the issue and coming up with a real solution, instead of overarching patch-job legislation and restriction of rights.
As you might note in my sig, I share the sentiments against the practitioners of flimsily-defended illegal infringement, and I'm in favor of the rights of content producers to have some control to offset the lack of tangibility and easy reproductive costs of their craft. However, just because there is copyright infringement, the government should not be taking away a consumer's non-infringing rights by virtue of their peripheral relatedness.
(And mentioning "groupthink" is just irrelevant name-calling, and, IMO, it just sounds petty. I've found that most fleshed-out, legitimate arguments do get positive modding and agreement (or counterargument, if they're flawed), even if it's against the imagined "Slashdot Groupthink" party line.)
In fact, I think it's downright hilarious.
It's like watching dogs fight over scraps. All the issues are so close and meaningless, it's more a race to see who can "own" a righteous stand on a certain particular issue than it is of holding to a political ideology. The scary part is that as the whole mess just becomes more and more absurd, the political system becomes more and more of a laughingstock, it just diverts attention away from the fact that these clowns we're all laughing at are still writing their papers and making their votes on things that actually affect people's lives.
Adding to that, media consolidation and long-distance mass communication have replaced important (but boring) small news about things we could/should deal with with National News: overwhelming and personally unimportant (but exciting) big news about things that no one can actually do anything about and doesn't really matter. We end up fighting over Presidents that are little more than a PR face, while just check-marking the incumbent for the local seats that actually get things done. And, yes, I'll admit, I do it myself (although I don't vote on people/issues I don't know... I just leave it blank).
Y'know, I never thought about it that way. (Actually, I never really considered the question at all, but I never really would have considered that.) That makes me wonder if the selection is actually a bias, or more of a "market segmentation".
Hrm.
You did... y'know... read the article, right? A little bit?
The only thing this story has to do with network computing is the fact that (one of) the incompetents involved happened to be connecting a network to a computer.
Perhaps, but this isn't the one to fight it on, by a long shot. In the case of "Idiot loses script, has no backups, looks for someone to blame." there isn't really much evidence that the corp's overpowering influence unfairly made (or was even needed to make) this case.
I always found Compuserve to be better. Their install set had 6 disks if you got the Mac version. I got up to having a UPS box full delivered when my parents cut me off.
I'd venture that anyone with the computer abilities to need Photoshop and Nero 6 Ultra are going to be either smart enough to find the firewall, the anti-spyware, and the CD rip/conv/tag program for free/low-cost, or have enough money to just buy what they need. The people buying these low-cost machines will end up with an OEM version of Windows, and probably something along the lines of Microsoft Works, and possibly Word as well. For most folks buying the $300 PCs, that would do them fine.
As for it not being "stealing". Fine. Call it copyright infringement. There's still the question: If you didn't write it, and you didn't have anything to do with writing it, what gives you any right to have any say as to how it's distributed.
The fact that you're whining about prices instead of announcing your new "Office-killer" makes me think that you don't have the time, initiative, or ability to write a suitable office suite. Likewise with an anti-virus program or a professional-grade image editor. If I'm wrong, and you do, I invite you to start coding. Otherwise, continue providing whatever other specialized and valuable service you can, then participate in the system of trade that's been set up to deal with such inabilities. With your own work done and cash in hand, you may now choose to accept what deals they offer, or to walk away if you feel that the product is not worth the price.
Of course, I'm not saying that you can't just copy the software. Yes, you do have the ability to do that, just as you have the ability to sneak out of the restaurant and stiff the staff. Just don't act so righteous about the whole thing, and don't get indignant when the people actually creating those things you want exert their ownership, by either legal or technical means. (Yes, I agree that they can and do go overboard in the means of exerting their ownership, and that's a point to debate on.)