People have been claiming that a dystopic future where media can never be shared will happen ever since the first MPAA complaints against Napster almost 15 years ago
And in that time, we've seen the media companies get more and more aggressive, and gain increasing clout given that they are now involved in the process of writing treaties with other countries.
What's more likely is that the major media companies will eventually find ways to license the media in a way that makes it more convenient, with more variety, and at a significantly lower cost to consumers than they paid 15-20 years ago before file-sharing started.
What, like how CDs were supposed to make music cheaper? From what I've seen, the media companies want to squeeze every last dime out of us, and have no interest whatsoever in lowering consumer costs. Lower costs for them is just an opportunity to increase profit, not lower the prices we pay.
It may not be the world you dreamed of where "all information is free" and unicorns fly around rainbows
Oddly enough, I've never dreamed of that world, and I've always thought the "information wants to be free" meme was stupid since I first heard it. But I do expect to keep my fair-use rights.
And I sincerely doubt we're returning to a place where there is less opportunity for free exchange of information than there was before the internet anytime soon
Really? When companies can submit bullshit DMCA claims on stuff they don't own or to stop negative reviews, or where we lose our fair use rights to format shift because we'd have to circumvent a digital lock, or because they don't want to grant an exemption which allows for libraries to read to children, or not allowing blind people to access stuff... and you don't think we're getting less opportunity for free exchange of information?
I believe these companies are trying very hard to take away any rights which they feel undercuts their belief they need to control all technology to protect their interests. We're talking about lobby groups who believe the photocopier should be outlawed because you could steal from them, and demand that all technology be crippled from the outset to be sure they control how it gets used.
Obviously, I have no idea of how this will turn out in the long run, but I certainly believe companies are doing their damdest to stack the deck against us, and it's hard not to believe they're winning given some of the IP clauses the US has been pushing on other countries via treaties and at the behest of the copyright lobby.
Swedish prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad has filed a motion at the District Court of Stockholm, requesting for the seizure of thepiratebay.se, piratebay.se and the new thepiratebay.is domains.
So far they've been playing a shell game with domains, but they're being pretty aggressively pursued.
I'd like to believe that, but what I've seen over the last bunch of years says that the copyright and media groups are winning the battle, and lawmakers are all too willing to give them what they want.
Between the DMCA, seemingly indefinite copyrights, and everything else, I don't see how we're going to make this inevitable.
It's beginning to look more like a world where the media companies control everything is inevitable.
Do you think the cable companies (who are largely owned by the major players in the copyright lobby) are ever going to allow that to happen?
They'll fight that tooth and nail, and pay off enough lawmakers to get what they want.
If ever such a magic box exists, it will be locked down and entirely controlled by the media industry, and set up to guarantee them ad revenue and deny you any rights. Then we'll be right back where we are now.
Why, because someone else could hear it, of course. You could even use it to read to children at libraries, and the right holders wouldn't get any money.
The big problem as the copyright cartel doesn't give a damn about anything but their own profits. They want to force their own veto on all forms of technology lest someone accidentally hear a Brittany Spears song they didn't get paid for.
They're entirely willing to scuttle most forms of technological progress to be damned sure they're in control of it.
The fact that apparently Hollywood is involved in treaty negotiations should tell you it's their interests government is looking out for, not yours.
No, I'm basing it entirely on knowledge of things like this where the $64,000 question and other shows were rigged.
I'm simply pointing out that, since there are laws surrounding how this is supposed to work, I therefore assume they're in compliance with those laws. If discounting those votes truly didn't affect the outcome, then it's fine.
I really don't care about the outcome, I'm just saying they might need to demonstrate their claim it didn't affect anything -- not to me (because I don't care), but possibly to the FCC or something. What they can't do it just make up their own results.
You don't have to say anything about the tastes of the voters (which from what I've seen is questionable).
It's not about better, it's about favorite.
And that still needs to be held to an objective standard by law. It's a contest, there are winners, and people vote on it -- that part is still covered by laws.
And naturally, these laws must be harmonized around the world based on the law from any individual country which gives the copyright/patent holder the most rights
Actually, when they've been foisting it onto other countries through threat of trade action, it's more like arm-twist another country into doing what the multinationals want, and then say domestic laws are out of step with the world and get them passed in the US.
But, make no mistake about it, the US diplomatic stuff for issues like this is driven by industry. So much so that countries have basically said they don't recognize the Special 301 reports because it's written by industry (yet becomes diplomatic policy).
Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.
You mean people actually think the voting is honest and real? That the TV execs don't advance the contestants that they think will be better for ratings?
Actually, given the number of scandals which have happened over the years from people fixing game shows and the like, and the laws which followed... if the TV execs were really fiddling with the outcomes, there would be legal fall-out as it's considered to be a contest.
So, by law, that voting on the outcome legally better be honest and real. And if people believed the shows had no integrity in the voting, the shows would tank pretty quickly.
Well, admittedly, I don't care about the reality shows.
But since there are laws about how you have to handle contests and the like, they need to really be able to prove that ignoring those votes had no effect on the outcome, or they could open themselves up for lawsuits.
Basically they'd have to show that the votes they ignored occurred in exactly the same distributions as the other voting methods.
And, since there's potentially a cost with voting, I have no idea if that even further mires things in.
I think they really do need to be able to explain this, and demonstrate that it didn't affect any outcomes. And if you've got several million people watching and voting, if they suddenly find out their voting is being ignored, will they keep watching?
Depends, how big is the debris and what's it made of, and how far away is the explosion?
Big giants chunks of debris would be no fun, nor would it be if the missile had radioactive material and destroying it turned it into a dirty bomb.
I'm more curious to know how much of this test was 'real', and how much relied on some of the tricks they've done in the past by essentially making it impossible for it to miss.
It's not like they haven't stacked these tests in their favor in the past to the point that you'd need whoever might be shooting at you to schedule an appointment and tell you exactly where the missile is coming from. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
That is, until Microsoft asserts patent ownership on the stuff in your free software.
I believe several times they've claimed that Linux violates a number of unspecified patents they hold, but I don't believe they've ever been willing to disclose what they are.
One does have to wonder what these patents are, if the patents would survive scrutiny, or if the technology was actually invented by someone else before Microsoft patented it.
Typical slashdot combination of the Nirvana fallacy (a solution that isn't 100% perfect is not acceptable), and a totally defeatist attitutude to technical problems.
It's not a defeatist attitude towards technical problems. It's a jaded belief that, sometimes, just throwing technology at a problem doesn't get you a better solution, just more technology.
Like Microsoft's "house of the future" or whatever it's called -- sometimes it seems like technology for the sake of having more technology, not because it's anything anybody needs.
I think this sounds kind of cool, but for the most part, it's pretty gimmicky and overkill in a Rube Goldberg kinda way. I applaud the work done for this, but I still shake my head and wonder who else wants it?
I wouldn't be interested in whistling on my lights, but I've certainly known a couple of quadriplegics who would have thought this was pretty awesome though.
Technology is cool, but it doesn't need to be fetishized as something we need to deploy in all cases -- like the idea of an internet connected fridge. Sure, we could do it, but do we really need an internet connected fridge?
Not only that, but this hasn't made it into law yet. Expect to see intense lobbying by (mostly) US business interests
Actually, I'd expect the US government to become heavily involved in this. They've been pushing copyright and IP laws on trading partners via treaties under threat of sanctions.
I just can't see the US government standing by quietly since the US has increasingly set themselves up to be an economy based on such things, and they've been using their clout to force everyone else to entrench laws to protect it.
The chance of their sudden death is something they accept... why can't we viewers accept it as well?
This isn't a chance. It's a 1 way trip. They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there. But, they *will* die.
Of course viewers will accept it, they'll embrace it -- pretty much like they embraced gladiatorial and watching public executions and watching decapitation videos on the internet.
I somehow doubt that a Mars mission funded by a reality show is going to create a viable self sustaining colony which allows these people to die of natural causes.
I can accept an astronaut signing up for something which is risky, but has a reasonable chance of working. But I'm a little creeped out by a guaranteed death sentence from a one way mission operated by a private company who wants to have a reality show.
I know the idea of going to Mars sounds awesome, but are there that many emotionally stable and qualified applicants who will sign up to be the first to die on another planet?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it can be de-orbited ... the people on it just might not like the outcome.
I doubt it's got enough shielding and the like to do it in any controlled way. I doubt it was even designed to be landed.
And in that time, we've seen the media companies get more and more aggressive, and gain increasing clout given that they are now involved in the process of writing treaties with other countries.
What, like how CDs were supposed to make music cheaper? From what I've seen, the media companies want to squeeze every last dime out of us, and have no interest whatsoever in lowering consumer costs. Lower costs for them is just an opportunity to increase profit, not lower the prices we pay.
Oddly enough, I've never dreamed of that world, and I've always thought the "information wants to be free" meme was stupid since I first heard it. But I do expect to keep my fair-use rights.
Really? When companies can submit bullshit DMCA claims on stuff they don't own or to stop negative reviews, or where we lose our fair use rights to format shift because we'd have to circumvent a digital lock, or because they don't want to grant an exemption which allows for libraries to read to children, or not allowing blind people to access stuff ... and you don't think we're getting less opportunity for free exchange of information?
I believe these companies are trying very hard to take away any rights which they feel undercuts their belief they need to control all technology to protect their interests. We're talking about lobby groups who believe the photocopier should be outlawed because you could steal from them, and demand that all technology be crippled from the outset to be sure they control how it gets used.
Obviously, I have no idea of how this will turn out in the long run, but I certainly believe companies are doing their damdest to stack the deck against us, and it's hard not to believe they're winning given some of the IP clauses the US has been pushing on other countries via treaties and at the behest of the copyright lobby.
That was my reaction when I heard Microsoft was developing an in-auto system with Ford.
Hackable cars!! What could possibly go wrong? ;-)
Yes, because they're operating with impunity.
So far they've been playing a shell game with domains, but they're being pretty aggressively pursued.
Soon the old will be harvesting the young ... awesome!
Nothing about what happens to the young, healthy mouse. But expect the old and rich to be draining the life essence of the young any time soon now.
I for one welcome our new life-sucking old-people overlords. ;-)
I'm not even sure of how many movie/book plots this covers.
I'd like to believe that, but what I've seen over the last bunch of years says that the copyright and media groups are winning the battle, and lawmakers are all too willing to give them what they want.
Between the DMCA, seemingly indefinite copyrights, and everything else, I don't see how we're going to make this inevitable.
It's beginning to look more like a world where the media companies control everything is inevitable.
Do you think the cable companies (who are largely owned by the major players in the copyright lobby) are ever going to allow that to happen?
They'll fight that tooth and nail, and pay off enough lawmakers to get what they want.
If ever such a magic box exists, it will be locked down and entirely controlled by the media industry, and set up to guarantee them ad revenue and deny you any rights. Then we'll be right back where we are now.
Why, because someone else could hear it, of course. You could even use it to read to children at libraries, and the right holders wouldn't get any money.
The big problem as the copyright cartel doesn't give a damn about anything but their own profits. They want to force their own veto on all forms of technology lest someone accidentally hear a Brittany Spears song they didn't get paid for.
They're entirely willing to scuttle most forms of technological progress to be damned sure they're in control of it.
The fact that apparently Hollywood is involved in treaty negotiations should tell you it's their interests government is looking out for, not yours.
No, I'm basing it entirely on knowledge of things like this where the $64,000 question and other shows were rigged.
I'm simply pointing out that, since there are laws surrounding how this is supposed to work, I therefore assume they're in compliance with those laws. If discounting those votes truly didn't affect the outcome, then it's fine.
I really don't care about the outcome, I'm just saying they might need to demonstrate their claim it didn't affect anything -- not to me (because I don't care), but possibly to the FCC or something. What they can't do it just make up their own results.
You don't have to say anything about the tastes of the voters (which from what I've seen is questionable).
It's not about better, it's about favorite.
And that still needs to be held to an objective standard by law. It's a contest, there are winners, and people vote on it -- that part is still covered by laws.
Actually, when they've been foisting it onto other countries through threat of trade action, it's more like arm-twist another country into doing what the multinationals want, and then say domestic laws are out of step with the world and get them passed in the US.
But, make no mistake about it, the US diplomatic stuff for issues like this is driven by industry. So much so that countries have basically said they don't recognize the Special 301 reports because it's written by industry (yet becomes diplomatic policy).
For instance:
Actually, given the number of scandals which have happened over the years from people fixing game shows and the like, and the laws which followed ... if the TV execs were really fiddling with the outcomes, there would be legal fall-out as it's considered to be a contest.
So, by law, that voting on the outcome legally better be honest and real. And if people believed the shows had no integrity in the voting, the shows would tank pretty quickly.
Well, admittedly, I don't care about the reality shows.
But since there are laws about how you have to handle contests and the like, they need to really be able to prove that ignoring those votes had no effect on the outcome, or they could open themselves up for lawsuits.
Basically they'd have to show that the votes they ignored occurred in exactly the same distributions as the other voting methods.
And, since there's potentially a cost with voting, I have no idea if that even further mires things in.
I think they really do need to be able to explain this, and demonstrate that it didn't affect any outcomes. And if you've got several million people watching and voting, if they suddenly find out their voting is being ignored, will they keep watching?
Depends, how big is the debris and what's it made of, and how far away is the explosion?
Big giants chunks of debris would be no fun, nor would it be if the missile had radioactive material and destroying it turned it into a dirty bomb.
I'm more curious to know how much of this test was 'real', and how much relied on some of the tricks they've done in the past by essentially making it impossible for it to miss.
It's not like they haven't stacked these tests in their favor in the past to the point that you'd need whoever might be shooting at you to schedule an appointment and tell you exactly where the missile is coming from. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
Or, maybe being a writer for ZDNet he writes things which are frequently of interest to us?
Three whole times in 2013 so far, wow, there must be some kind of conspiracy.
That is, until Microsoft asserts patent ownership on the stuff in your free software.
I believe several times they've claimed that Linux violates a number of unspecified patents they hold, but I don't believe they've ever been willing to disclose what they are.
One does have to wonder what these patents are, if the patents would survive scrutiny, or if the technology was actually invented by someone else before Microsoft patented it.
Ah, yes, one of the few governments who might be willing to tell the us to PFO. Cool.
It's not a defeatist attitude towards technical problems. It's a jaded belief that, sometimes, just throwing technology at a problem doesn't get you a better solution, just more technology.
Like Microsoft's "house of the future" or whatever it's called -- sometimes it seems like technology for the sake of having more technology, not because it's anything anybody needs.
I think this sounds kind of cool, but for the most part, it's pretty gimmicky and overkill in a Rube Goldberg kinda way. I applaud the work done for this, but I still shake my head and wonder who else wants it?
I wouldn't be interested in whistling on my lights, but I've certainly known a couple of quadriplegics who would have thought this was pretty awesome though.
Technology is cool, but it doesn't need to be fetishized as something we need to deploy in all cases -- like the idea of an internet connected fridge. Sure, we could do it, but do we really need an internet connected fridge?
Actually, I'd expect the US government to become heavily involved in this. They've been pushing copyright and IP laws on trading partners via treaties under threat of sanctions.
I just can't see the US government standing by quietly since the US has increasingly set themselves up to be an economy based on such things, and they've been using their clout to force everyone else to entrench laws to protect it.
This isn't a chance. It's a 1 way trip. They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there. But, they *will* die.
Of course viewers will accept it, they'll embrace it -- pretty much like they embraced gladiatorial and watching public executions and watching decapitation videos on the internet.
I somehow doubt that a Mars mission funded by a reality show is going to create a viable self sustaining colony which allows these people to die of natural causes.
I can accept an astronaut signing up for something which is risky, but has a reasonable chance of working. But I'm a little creeped out by a guaranteed death sentence from a one way mission operated by a private company who wants to have a reality show.
Awesome, I've been expecting that sooner or later reality TV would go in the direction of people dying for years now.
I'm sure the dying moments of these people will make for really awesome ratings.
What a dumb fscking idea.
I know the idea of going to Mars sounds awesome, but are there that many emotionally stable and qualified applicants who will sign up to be the first to die on another planet?
I think this is a bad way to go about this.
Holy crap, that's a lot ... I'm not sure I've had 400 different logins over the last 25 years.
I'm more shocked that people have been doing that all along.
This has been good security practice for a very long time.
Re-using login/password combos has always been a bad idea.