As admirable as you believe the goal is (and I agree with you on that), the means is just *wrong*.
You're talking about organizations that think nothing of sending infringement notices for things that are in the public domian, or copyrighted by the people who post them. "Artist's" groups that send DMCA notices against the wishes of the authors they represent for material that is published by the authors themselves under a CC license.
These are people who send infringement notices based on nothing more than the author's name being similar to one they represent.
They are people who send infringement notices to the wrong place, or "link" infringement to IP addresses that are assigned to printers.
You get three of these? You're off the net. Period. Doesn't matter if the stuff is CC'ed or not. Doesn't matter that the notices are invalid. You're guilty until proven innocent. You have to prove you're innocent, and do it without access to the tools necessary to do so.
THIS IS WRONG
"Bring it on" is entirely the wrong way to approach this - we need to stop it before it happens, not try to fix it after.
They keep locking it down. We keep opening it up. We wouldn't have this problem if all devices were "open" in the first place.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. See the problem is cellular Internet costs money.
Sorry, but what the fuck does "cellular internet costing money" have to do with *anything* in the post you replied to?
You spent all of your post addressing a comment, but neglected to actually address anything the comment said, and instead went on an insane rant about "stuff costing money" and "free" and proceeded to try to justify stupid business models.
I think you *really* need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
And where else will the bands (or their marketing managers) find such a large collection of malleable young airheads, all eager to be commanded what to think, what to buy, what to talk about, and what to do, so they'll appear all grown up and cool?
We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit.
History disagrees with you. Bill C-32 (which was bought and paid for by the CRIA) established the CPCC levy. That same law was then used against the CRIA when they tried to sue people on filesharing networks.
It is, and always has been, a violation to provide the copies.
No. There is no law against "making available", which is why when the CRIA filed a court order to obtain the personal information of alleged filesharing users in 2003, the judge basically said "you haven't shown that any law has been broken." Bills C60 and C61 both had provisions to add "making available" to Canadian law, but as you mentioned, both of them died on the floor of Parliament.
This provides the interesting point where if someone downloads an album via Azureus, that's legal up until the point when you start seeding.
Again wrong. If you're using Azureus then you are (by definition) making a copy for your own personal use. Once you're seeding, it's *other people* who are making the copies.
In short, up here, it's legal to download but unlawful to upload.*
True, but irrelevant in this context, as when using P2P, nobody is actively "uploading" - people download from you (which is not the same thing), but you're not actively making any copies. The copy you made went into your "downloads" directory, which you (ostensibly) made so you could listen to it. The additional copies made when other people download from you are legal, as they are (also ostensibly) being made for those people's personal use. "Making available" isn't illegal, so no laws are being broken.
That's because we pay a CIRA levy on all blank media; a "pirate tax", if you will. CIRA has already decided that I'm going to use that spindle of DVD-Rs for pirating, so I should pay a little extra at the counter to compensate them for the loss of revenue. I am not making that up.
You may be surprised that the US has a similar levy, but it applies to blank "audio" CDs only. As mentioned in the link, many other countries have a copyright levy too.
More likely that Craigslist didn't have as much of a head start as it did with other cities.
Kijiji started in Canada (including Edmonton) in March 2005. Craigslist added Edmonton in Jan 2005. It makes sense that in cities where Craigslist had little or no momentum, there would be much less "network effect", which would allow a competitor to do better.
If you have two players fighting over a new market, perception would drive users to the one that works better, or looks better. As both sites work pretty much the same, the site's look would have a larger factor in determining dominance. Comparing the two sites on look only, Craigslist "looks like ass" (according to a colleague I just asked.) compared to Kijiji, which looks more "professional" (same user), which would drive users towards Kijiji.
This offers a better explanation of why Kijiji did better in "smaller" markets - not because the markets themselves are small, but because the smaller the market the later Craigslist was at entering.
In every comparable category I've checked, Kijiji has more activity (usually by an order of magnitude.) For example "Computers" - Kijiji has 17 ads in the last hour, Craigslist has 3 for the whole day. (And that's not counting "Computer accessories" which only exists in Kijiji.) "Motorcycles" - Kijiji has 31 posts so far today, Craigslist has 3. "Furniture" - Kijiji has 27 posts in the last hour, Craigslist has 4 for the day.
Every other category I've checked is similar.. Kijiji is just *way* more popular in Edmonton.
he may have volunteered for all this work, in the name of the cause.
Yes, and I'm sure that he insisted on having the barbwire fences and armed patrols in case he changed his mind, right?
After all, that's how was able to prove he was volunteering in earnest - he obviously (at 8 years old) was capable of fully understanding what it was he was signing up for, and insisted that he must be prevented from leaving by armed guards in case he lost that understanding as he matured!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, no.
As admirable as you believe the goal is (and I agree with you on that), the means is just *wrong*.
You're talking about organizations that think nothing of sending infringement notices for things that are in the public domian, or copyrighted by the people who post them. "Artist's" groups that send DMCA notices against the wishes of the authors they represent for material that is published by the authors themselves under a CC license.
These are people who send infringement notices based on nothing more than the author's name being similar to one they represent.
They are people who send infringement notices to the wrong place, or "link" infringement to IP addresses that are assigned to printers.
You get three of these? You're off the net. Period. Doesn't matter if the stuff is CC'ed or not. Doesn't matter that the notices are invalid. You're guilty until proven innocent. You have to prove you're innocent, and do it without access to the tools necessary to do so.
THIS IS WRONG
"Bring it on" is entirely the wrong way to approach this - we need to stop it before it happens, not try to fix it after.
They keep locking it down. We keep opening it up. We wouldn't have this problem if all devices were "open" in the first place.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. See the problem is cellular Internet costs money.
Sorry, but what the fuck does "cellular internet costing money" have to do with *anything* in the post you replied to?
You spent all of your post addressing a comment, but neglected to actually address anything the comment said, and instead went on an insane rant about "stuff costing money" and "free" and proceeded to try to justify stupid business models.
I think you *really* need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
The Canadian government's copyright board says piracy "involves commercial-scale operations and a profit motive" - isn't that what this is?
Stallman doesn't approve of anything commercial, or anyone making any profit off of anything at all.
Would you like some ketchup to go with that foot?
developers need testers
So your solution to this is to stop adding new drivers so the testers have nothing to test?
Yeah, that makes a *lot* of sense!
OK, go find a copy of Shatner's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", and listen to it 20 times in a row.
It's *that* bad.
And where else will the bands (or their marketing managers) find such a large collection of malleable young airheads, all eager to be commanded what to think, what to buy, what to talk about, and what to do, so they'll appear all grown up and cool?
Youtube.
Does that mean users of Apple computers are far smarter than users of Windows computers?
Well duh. They picked Apple, didn't they?
you are basically contending that it's impossible to illegally pirate content using P2P networks in Canada
No. It's not piracy, it only applies to music, and it depends on how the specific P2P network operates.
I would be very surprised if what you say is actually true.
It doesn't really matter what you believe, it's true whether you believe it or not.
We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit.
History disagrees with you. Bill C-32 (which was bought and paid for by the CRIA) established the CPCC levy. That same law was then used against the CRIA when they tried to sue people on filesharing networks.
It is, and always has been, a violation to provide the copies.
No. There is no law against "making available", which is why when the CRIA filed a court order to obtain the personal information of alleged filesharing users in 2003, the judge basically said "you haven't shown that any law has been broken." Bills C60 and C61 both had provisions to add "making available" to Canadian law, but as you mentioned, both of them died on the floor of Parliament.
This provides the interesting point where if someone downloads an album via Azureus, that's legal up until the point when you start seeding.
Again wrong. If you're using Azureus then you are (by definition) making a copy for your own personal use. Once you're seeding, it's *other people* who are making the copies.
In short, up here, it's legal to download but unlawful to upload.*
True, but irrelevant in this context, as when using P2P, nobody is actively "uploading" - people download from you (which is not the same thing), but you're not actively making any copies. The copy you made went into your "downloads" directory, which you (ostensibly) made so you could listen to it. The additional copies made when other people download from you are legal, as they are (also ostensibly) being made for those people's personal use. "Making available" isn't illegal, so no laws are being broken.
That's because we pay a CIRA levy on all blank media; a "pirate tax", if you will. CIRA has already decided that I'm going to use that spindle of DVD-Rs for pirating, so I should pay a little extra at the counter to compensate them for the loss of revenue. I am not making that up.
You may be surprised that the US has a similar levy, but it applies to blank "audio" CDs only. As mentioned in the link, many other countries have a copyright levy too.
I wonder if Edmonton, Ca is an anomaly.
More likely that Craigslist didn't have as much of a head start as it did with other cities.
Kijiji started in Canada (including Edmonton) in March 2005. Craigslist added Edmonton in Jan 2005. It makes sense that in cities where Craigslist had little or no momentum, there would be much less "network effect", which would allow a competitor to do better.
If you have two players fighting over a new market, perception would drive users to the one that works better, or looks better. As both sites work pretty much the same, the site's look would have a larger factor in determining dominance. Comparing the two sites on look only, Craigslist "looks like ass" (according to a colleague I just asked.) compared to Kijiji, which looks more "professional" (same user), which would drive users towards Kijiji.
This offers a better explanation of why Kijiji did better in "smaller" markets - not because the markets themselves are small, but because the smaller the market the later Craigslist was at entering.
I can't actually find a specific small-town environment in which Kijiji actually has an advantage. Can anyone suggest a specific one?
http://edmonton.en.craigslist.ca/
http://edmonton.kijiji.ca/
In every comparable category I've checked, Kijiji has more activity (usually by an order of magnitude.) For example "Computers" - Kijiji has 17 ads in the last hour, Craigslist has 3 for the whole day. (And that's not counting "Computer accessories" which only exists in Kijiji.) "Motorcycles" - Kijiji has 31 posts so far today, Craigslist has 3. "Furniture" - Kijiji has 27 posts in the last hour, Craigslist has 4 for the day.
Every other category I've checked is similar.. Kijiji is just *way* more popular in Edmonton.
Where I live, and what I buy/sell, Kijiji has *way* more users.
Compare:
http://edmonton.kijiji.ca/f-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-W0QQCatIdZ103
http://edmonton.en.craigslist.ca/pho/
Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?
No, it's a scientific journal. They don't write about sports.
No surprise that they won't investigate anything.
If you read the article and summary, you'll discover that they did investigate, and found nothing wrong.
Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Learning a bit about the scientific method would help too.
Free markets in no way favor corporations.
History would disagree with you.
If you can get past the left-right paradigm then you'd see that MSNBC and CNN are on just as bad as Fox.
Really? Please point out to me the anti-government rallies that MSNBC or CNN organized and sponsored, so that they could report on them.
the nastiest, meanest, pit-bull-of-an-attorney she hires can drum up
Paging Mr. NYCL. Can Mr. NYCL please come to the courtesy phone?
(Just kidding - I wouldn't consider him nasty or mean - but definitely the right man for the job.. if he was in Chicago :)
Their name got known. That's half the battle. Too bad they got known in a bad way.
So much for the old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity", huh? :)
Happens all the time, it's called peer review.
Your lack of science knowledge is astounding.
Peer review is you know, when your peers review your work. That's why it's called peer review, and not self review.
Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves? How on earth is that scientific?
I was expecting some sort of cool Linux Zork tie-in.
Funny, I was expecting Pam Dawber and Robin Williams.
There needs to be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped, and not staying voluntarily.
No, there doesn't.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases. This is a civil suit, in which the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence".
if there's no evidence that he was forcibly detained, there will be no successful prosecution.
Again, this is a civil suit, so there is no prosecution.
he may have volunteered for all this work, in the name of the cause.
Yes, and I'm sure that he insisted on having the barbwire fences and armed patrols in case he changed his mind, right?
After all, that's how was able to prove he was volunteering in earnest - he obviously (at 8 years old) was capable of fully understanding what it was he was signing up for, and insisted that he must be prevented from leaving by armed guards in case he lost that understanding as he matured!
The major problem is that most software patents were not awarded to truly patentable software innovations
As any true Scotsman would be able to tell you, that's not a problem.