Oh that attitude is really going to help defeat this! If you want to win, instead of just making some feel good leftist statement you are going to need allies, and pissing off a large segment of the population by attempting to tie this in with your unrelated pet causes is only going to drive people into the MPAA/RIAA camp.
"But *no one* should put up will lower quality simply because a given product is made in America. That's the kind of bullshit attitude that got the U.S. auto industry hosed a few decades ago, if you recall."
Sorry it's a package deal. Loss of compatition allmost allways leads to lower quality products. Other parts of the package are the higher taxes to cover the unemployment payments to all the Americans who lose their import related jobs, and the Americans who lose their export related jobs when the retaliation for the "Buy American" campaign occurs overseas. I suggest you study the dire effects the high tariffs the USA enacted in 1930 had on world trade, and the resulting deeping of the Great Depression.
OK, A few questions, Do You drive an American made car? Are you wearing American made clothing? Do You look for the "Made in USA" Label before making a purchase? Are You willing to pay more money for a product if it's made in America? Are You willing to settle for a lower quality product if it means buying American?
If you answered "No" to any of these questions, then you are just as "guilty" of costing "Real Americans" their job as any company that hires an H1B, and the people that you "put out of work" don't have any reason to give a damn that you are now unemployed.
This is amazing! Since the RIAA and MPAA has lost umpteen gazillion dollars to Piracy, I'm sure they couldn't afford to send over the bags of money this year, Yet their tame Congress Critters, out of pure loyality are doing this little favor for their masters!
This kind of loyality needs to be rewarded!! We need to make up for all that money the RIAA/MPAA couldn't afford to contribute to the reelection after losing umpteen gazillion dollars.
We need to get ahold of the campaign propaganda of any Congress Critter that supports this law, and help him get the word out, by spamming every voter in his district 50 or 60 times a day with his reelection material during the final week before the election.
That should help bring his vote total closer to what he deserves after voting for the Cyber Vigilante law.
The purpose of the exercise is to get arrested, and to make the advisary look bad for arresting you. Most of the times Dr. King was arrested he was charged with unlawful assembly rather than with violating whichever civil rights law he was protesting.
Holywood has said too many things about censorship over the years. Any attempt to arrest demostrators is going to make them look bad, real bad. Once I get arrested by the MPAA, I can start yelling things like "The Blacklist mentality of the 1950s has returned to Hollywood"
I agree that this is closer to evading the law instead of civil disobedience. A good example of civil disobedance in this case would be a 100 Linux users sitting on the steps of the MPAA's offices watching legal (not pirated) DVD's on Linux laptops. For a protest of regional encoding you might have 100 portable TV hooked up to modified DVD players each of which is loaded with a DVD legally purchased on the internet from an out of region vender.
Despite claims to the contrary, the RIAA and the the MPAA have never liked the concept of fair use, and have tried to narrow it's scope to the point that it no longer exists. They need an excuse to get rid of long standing ideas of fair use, and the "pirates" are the perfect excuse. Their proposals are intended to kill two birds with one stone, not only get rid of "piracy" but also fair use.
To be blunt, there are a bunch of greedy little shits who are trying to get a large music collection without paying for it, and a few greedy big shits are using them as an excuse enact draconian laws that not only get rid of the greedy little shits, but also allows them to put the squeeze on the honest music and movie fans.
Copyright reform is needed, but the "pirates" are not making it easier to make a case for sane copyright laws that protect copyright holders and fair use.
Copyright is distrubition rights. Nothing in fair use covers mass distrubition. The TV station has paid a considerable sum for a limited right to redistrubite the movie. If you don't have an agreement with the copyright holder (like the TV station does) you don't have the right to distrubite the work.
A Movie does not lose all value when it's broadcast. Video rental store have lots of movies that have been broadcast that people still rent. Movies that have been broadcast still are offered for sale by the studios, and people buy them. The copyright holder not only can, but is still making money off the material after it is broadcast.
The problem with copyright isn't that it exists, it's that the length of the copyright has become so long that it no longer serves it's original purpose of encouraging new works, rather it's become a way of keeping works out of the public domain where they could serve as the basis for new works that would compete for market dollars.
Purchasing the media does not give you the right to distrubite it, so the person you downloaded it from is illeagaly distrubiting copyrighted material. If you leave it in your share directory, you are illegally distrubiting copyrighted material.
Changing the format of material that you allready own is covered under fair use, but it is your responibility to do it. If you do it for others or have others do it for you, then it's no longer fair use it's distrubition.
Oh I'm in favor of copyright reform, like returning to the original length of copyrights, 14 years automatic protection, with the posibility of an additional 14 years if the copyright is regestered, the law also needs to make it plain that copyrights only cover unauthorized distrubition. Once I purchase the copyrighted material I have full rights to transfer it to another media or format for my personal use. This would include getting rid of restrictions in EULAs that go beyond protections for any other copyrighted work.
Copyright reform needs to be coupled with Patent reforms including a ban on any patent that isn't hardware related.
However until the reforms happen, simply ignoring the current laws isn't going to help the cause for reforms, instead it's only going to make it harder to get the laws reformed, and is likely to lead to even harsher laws. The only excuse breaking laws like the present copyright laws would be for the purpose of creating a test case to take before the courts in an effort to overturn them.
We can't make a credible plea that the rights associated with the public domain and fair use be respected if we show no willingness to respect the rights of copyright holders.
If your brother was making hundreds of copies of the tape or vcd and mailing those copies to anyone who happened to send him a postcard, that would be a closer model to what is happening on the internet today
If your brother put the download on a password protected site, so that just you could pick up a copy, then that would be closer to your first two examples. The MPAA would probelly still whine about it, but they wouldn't be able to get the support for things like broadcast flags and a fritz chip if that was all that was involved in casual distribution over the internet.
The open blatant disregard for copyright laws on the internet is why the MPAA stands a good chance of getting this bullshit enacted.
Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target...
on
MPAA vs. Television
·
· Score: 2
"Unfortunately, the SC GOP hasn't realized that it isn't too smart to antagonize the 1/3 of the voters in SC who happen to be a different color than they are."
That third is unlikely to vote for any GOP canidate no matter what his stance is. The big problem is the "God Squad" dominates the GOP nomination process and they would rather lose the election with a "true beleaver" than win with a more modarate canidate.
Then the $64,000 question is when will Mozilla get the spell checker?
The one at Mozdev is pretty good, but it isn't going to get the kind of testing it needs until it's checked into the Mozilla tree, and right after the 1.1b release will give 5 weeks to hash any remaining bugs out.
Re:Software Compatability is the key, not OS
on
AMD's 64-Bit Chip
·
· Score: 2
" Who the hell needs a DESKTOP system to be 64 bit?"
Now why am I getting a feeling of Deja Vu? Maybe remembering the people who questioned who would need a 32 bit CPU in a desktop PC when the 386 was released.
Hatespeach? Do you really want to go down that road? Think of how many passages in the Bible are slurs against the Gods that other people worship, describing them as false idols and demons among other things.
Sorry if some tasteless websites should be banned because of "Hatespeach" against the Christian God (or his mother), then we have to avoid double standards by banning the Bible because of it's "Hatespeach" against non-christian Gods.
Re:Ownership as the basis of political rights
on
Triangle Boy Lives
·
· Score: 2
30 years ago a lot of people were scared of the implications that computers had for personal freedom. At that time computers were very expensive, and allmost entirely owned by "a small group of people".
The micro computer opened ownership up to millions of people, and that ownership has vastly increased the value of freedom of speech. 30 years ago if you didn't own a TV station, a Radio station or a printing press, your chances of reaching a large audiance were close to nil. Ownership of computers has changed that so that I can reach a fairly large audiance with this post (Hi Folks!) something that I could not have done in 1972.
If restrictions had been placed on media outlets in 1972 to protect me from the few who owned them then, there is no reason to think that those same restrictions wouldn't have been applied to the micro computer when it was developed a few years later, which in the long run would have a negative effect on my freedom of speech.
We have reached the point that used computers capable of handling most people's computing needs can be bought for less than a TV. Budget dial-up internet access is under 10 bucks a month. There are damn few people in the industrilized world who can't afford a computer if they are willing to make a minor adjustment to their lifestyle.
Oh, I just hallucanated that big budget item for education in the State and Federal budget, and the overwhealming support for software filtering amnog the voters.
Sorry the taxpayers have no intrest in providing you with a source of porn.
You paid part of the cost of that computer, along with a great many other taxpayers, the majority of whom agree with the filtering software. Why should your desire for unfiltered access take precedence over the desire of other taxpayers for filtered access?
Sorry if you want to have public properity, you have to get use to public control of that properity, and in a demoarcy that means accepting whatever restrictions the majority wishes to place on the properity they also paid for.
Now if there should be any "public" properity that some people are forced to contribute towards the purchase of even though it may used in a manner that they object to is another matter.
Re:Ownership as the basis of political rights
on
Triangle Boy Lives
·
· Score: 2
" I guess the biggest objection some people will have is that when you make political rights dependent on ownership of property, a lot of people who don't own property lose their rights."
Control of properity that you own is a political right.
"A lot of people say that mass ownership of property guarantees political rights, since the control of ownership limits the power base of the government or other property owners."
Yep, it proteted people in that bastion of civil rights, the Soviet Union.
"I think our world is turning in a scary world of property being concentrated into the hands of a few who tout the rights granted by their property ownership, which is really is an end run around the implied political rights of others."
There is no "right" to control other people's properity.
"where do you think they got the money to pay for them?"
Certainly not from students, most of whom pay little or nothing in taxes, and who's fees are far less than the cost of their education. A large majority of the taxpayers support blocking access on the computers that they paid for.
When the subject is Spam, I see lots of people insisting that they have the right to control what is on their computers. (True)
When the subject changes to filters, suddenly the people who own the computer suddenly lose the right to control the content? The Company you work or or the school that you attend owns that computer that they installed the internet filtering software on, and they have as much right to "censor" internet access on their computer as you have to "censor" email from spammers on your computer.
I'll admit that the commerical filtering software is garbage that often blocks the wrong sites and allows access to some sites that they should have picked up, but that dosen't change the fact that the owners of the computers have the right to install the software.
Don't like the poor software availble? Then start developing an open source filtering software that works better and offer that as an alternitive to the junk that is currently used.
Want full unrestricted access? Use your computer instead of one that was provided to you to do a job or for educational access.
That is the root problem, most of the complaints are from people who in effect want T1 service at residental subscriber prices.
The Cable companies have set up a service and a price structure that is aimed at the typical home internet user. It isn't intended to be a substitute for a T1 line, yet people are complaining that their $40 cable dosen't have the flexability of a far more expensive T1 line.
If there is a large enough market for low cost T1 type services someone will provide it, but a few geeks wanting to run webservers is not a large enough market to justify the cost at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry it's a package deal. Loss of compatition allmost allways leads to lower quality products. Other parts of the package are the higher taxes to cover the unemployment payments to all the Americans who lose their import related jobs, and the Americans who lose their export related jobs when the retaliation for the "Buy American" campaign occurs overseas. I suggest you study the dire effects the high tariffs the USA enacted in 1930 had on world trade, and the resulting deeping of the Great Depression.
Do You drive an American made car?
Are you wearing American made clothing?
Do You look for the "Made in USA" Label before making a purchase?
Are You willing to pay more money for a product if it's made in America?
Are You willing to settle for a lower quality product if it means buying American?
If you answered "No" to any of these questions, then you are just as "guilty" of costing "Real Americans" their job as any company that hires an H1B, and the people that you "put out of work" don't have any reason to give a damn that you are now unemployed.
This kind of loyality needs to be rewarded!! We need to make up for all that money the RIAA/MPAA couldn't afford to contribute to the reelection after losing umpteen gazillion dollars.
We need to get ahold of the campaign propaganda of any Congress Critter that supports this law, and help him get the word out, by spamming every voter in his district 50 or 60 times a day with his reelection material during the final week before the election.
That should help bring his vote total closer to what he deserves after voting for the Cyber Vigilante law.
The purpose of the exercise is to get arrested, and to make the advisary look bad for arresting you. Most of the times Dr. King was arrested he was charged with unlawful assembly rather than with violating whichever civil rights law he was protesting.
Holywood has said too many things about censorship over the years. Any attempt to arrest demostrators is going to make them look bad, real bad. Once I get arrested by the MPAA, I can start yelling things like "The Blacklist mentality of the 1950s has returned to Hollywood"
LOL, Real geeks call that an intresting challenge, not a problem ;-)
Step 8: Parents take Box in for Warranty
Step 9: Parents informed Warranty voided by tampering
Step 10: Ride bus
Is there any technology that can't be misused? Maybe we ought to ban it all and move back in the caves.
To be blunt, there are a bunch of greedy little shits who are trying to get a large music collection without paying for it, and a few greedy big shits are using them as an excuse enact draconian laws that not only get rid of the greedy little shits, but also allows them to put the squeeze on the honest music and movie fans.
Copyright reform is needed, but the "pirates" are not making it easier to make a case for sane copyright laws that protect copyright holders and fair use.
A Movie does not lose all value when it's broadcast. Video rental store have lots of movies that have been broadcast that people still rent. Movies that have been broadcast still are offered for sale by the studios, and people buy them. The copyright holder not only can, but is still making money off the material after it is broadcast.
The problem with copyright isn't that it exists, it's that the length of the copyright has become so long that it no longer serves it's original purpose of encouraging new works, rather it's become a way of keeping works out of the public domain where they could serve as the basis for new works that would compete for market dollars.
Changing the format of material that you allready own is covered under fair use, but it is your responibility to do it. If you do it for others or have others do it for you, then it's no longer fair use it's distrubition.
Copyright reform needs to be coupled with Patent reforms including a ban on any patent that isn't hardware related.
However until the reforms happen, simply ignoring the current laws isn't going to help the cause for reforms, instead it's only going to make it harder to get the laws reformed, and is likely to lead to even harsher laws. The only excuse breaking laws like the present copyright laws would be for the purpose of creating a test case to take before the courts in an effort to overturn them.
We can't make a credible plea that the rights associated with the public domain and fair use be respected if we show no willingness to respect the rights of copyright holders.
If your brother put the download on a password protected site, so that just you could pick up a copy, then that would be closer to your first two examples. The MPAA would probelly still whine about it, but they wouldn't be able to get the support for things like broadcast flags and a fritz chip if that was all that was involved in casual distribution over the internet.
The open blatant disregard for copyright laws on the internet is why the MPAA stands a good chance of getting this bullshit enacted.
That third is unlikely to vote for any GOP canidate no matter what his stance is. The big problem is the "God Squad" dominates the GOP nomination process and they would rather lose the election with a "true beleaver" than win with a more modarate canidate.
The one at Mozdev is pretty good, but it isn't going to get the kind of testing it needs until it's checked into the Mozilla tree, and right after the 1.1b release will give 5 weeks to hash any remaining bugs out.
Now why am I getting a feeling of Deja Vu?
Maybe remembering the people who questioned who would need a 32 bit CPU in a desktop PC when the 386 was released.
Hatespeach? Do you really want to go down that road? Think of how many passages in the Bible are slurs against the Gods that other people worship, describing them as false idols and demons among other things.
Sorry if some tasteless websites should be banned because of "Hatespeach" against the Christian God (or his mother), then we have to avoid double standards by banning the Bible because of it's "Hatespeach" against non-christian Gods.
The micro computer opened ownership up to millions of people, and that ownership has vastly increased the value of freedom of speech. 30 years ago if you didn't own a TV station, a Radio station or a printing press, your chances of reaching a large audiance were close to nil. Ownership of computers has changed that so that I can reach a fairly large audiance with this post (Hi Folks!) something that I could not have done in 1972.
If restrictions had been placed on media outlets in 1972 to protect me from the few who owned them then, there is no reason to think that those same restrictions wouldn't have been applied to the micro computer when it was developed a few years later, which in the long run would have a negative effect on my freedom of speech.
We have reached the point that used computers capable of handling most people's computing needs can be bought for less than a TV. Budget dial-up internet access is under 10 bucks a month. There are damn few people in the industrilized world who can't afford a computer if they are willing to make a minor adjustment to their lifestyle.
Sorry the taxpayers have no intrest in providing you with a source of porn.
Sorry if you want to have public properity, you have to get use to public control of that properity, and in a demoarcy that means accepting whatever restrictions the majority wishes to place on the properity they also paid for.
Now if there should be any "public" properity that some people are forced to contribute towards the purchase of even though it may used in a manner that they object to is another matter.
Control of properity that you own is a political right.
"A lot of people say that mass ownership of property guarantees political rights, since the control of ownership limits the power base of the government or other property owners."
Yep, it proteted people in that bastion of civil rights, the Soviet Union.
"I think our world is turning in a scary world of property being concentrated into the hands of a few who tout the rights granted by their property ownership, which is really is an end run around the implied political rights of others."
There is no "right" to control other people's properity.
Certainly not from students, most of whom pay little or nothing in taxes, and who's fees are far less than the cost of their education. A large majority of the taxpayers support blocking access on the computers that they paid for.
When the subject is Spam, I see lots of people insisting that they have the right to control what is on their computers. (True)
When the subject changes to filters, suddenly the people who own the computer suddenly lose the right to control the content? The Company you work or or the school that you attend owns that computer that they installed the internet filtering software on, and they have as much right to "censor" internet access on their computer as you have to "censor" email from spammers on your computer.
I'll admit that the commerical filtering software is garbage that often blocks the wrong sites and allows access to some sites that they should have picked up, but that dosen't change the fact that the owners of the computers have the right to install the software.
Don't like the poor software availble? Then start developing an open source filtering software that works better and offer that as an alternitive to the junk that is currently used.
Want full unrestricted access? Use your computer instead of one that was provided to you to do a job or for educational access.
The Cable companies have set up a service and a price structure that is aimed at the typical home internet user. It isn't intended to be a substitute for a T1 line, yet people are complaining that their $40 cable dosen't have the flexability of a far more expensive T1 line.
If there is a large enough market for low cost T1 type services someone will provide it, but a few geeks wanting to run webservers is not a large enough market to justify the cost at this time.