You've bought into the propaganda as much as the people you renounce for believing pot kills.
I'm sure there are a lot of crack addicts that started with pot. I'm also pretty sure that most of them probably "did" alcohol or cigarettes before that. I'm also pretty sure most of them ate candy before they did marijuana. Ban this evil gateway candy before it leads kids to marijuana!
Studies actually show that the majority of pot smokers do not move on to harder and more addictive drugs. You CAN make a inference this way -- but it does not work the other way around. Plus, the sad thing is, we send our pot smokers to an unregulated supplier to get their drugs. There's nothing preventing them from selling it to minors or lacing it with other drugs or from saying "hey, I'm out of that today, but here's something else you might like."
And, you know what, if you legalize marijuana, cocaine users and crack users and whatever are, of course, going to pursue the same route. And would it be so bad? We remove a black market entirely, along with it's assorted crime and negative influences. We can regulate the distribution. We can better keep it out of the hands of minors and people who have problems regulating their intake. We can bring the prices down to a reasonable level, generate a new tax for the government, and create a new business. We can start educating people with facts and not fear and propaganda. We can actually offer treatment, rather than imprisonment for those with a problem. We don't think locking up an alcoholic will solve their problem, but apparently, we think it will cause a herion addict to "come to their senses."
By the way, drug abusers don't steal to support their habit, they steal because the prices are artificially inflated, and there's no one they can turn to when their problem gets out of hand.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
Sounds like you've been spoon fed for a while yourself. Go read some literature, go see how Amsterdam is handling their drug "problem".
Seriously. I don't think I have the qualifications to get into the Senate, but I think (particluarly in a large state like Texas) I stand a chance at getting into the House of Representatives.
This isn't quite the same as being in the state's Senate or HoR, but I'm tired of the disconnect of politicians with their constituents and the apparent disregard for the rights of the average citizen. It seems the Republicans want to give business ultimate rule of law and the Democrats want to lock down the general population so that nothing bad ever befalls them -- regardless of the consequences on people, culture, or the things that make this country great.
So, does anyone know how to run for a seat in the House?
I think artists should be able to make as much money as they can. I hope they make enough so that they can create more.
However, I think the perpetual extension of copyright is bad. It's the rare piece of work, like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon which is profitable ten or more years after it's release. These things are generally regarded as classics. With perpetual copyright, we stand to lose those things completely. I'm quite sure that there are computer games we've already lost. Being able to copy these things allows those who don't care about profit, or those who can pursue a miniscule profit to ensure that these things survive.
Would we be better off without the works of Shakespeare or Chopin or Van Gogh? I think not. But, then I'm writing on Slashdot, so I'm just preaching to the choir.
Hopefully there will be a revolution soon -- but I don't count on it.
Just when you think it can't get any worse...
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 1
it does.
Is there anyone who doesn't think copyright is out of control now? Anyone? Bueller?
Let's see, here's something I wrote. I think it should be law. I copyright it, submit it, and now it is law. However, since I own the copyright, I won't let you read it, not even for one million dollars. Nope. Just hope you don't violate it. I'll be sure to let you know when you do.
The precident here is terrible. One, we shouldn't be rubber stamping laws for corporations. Two, if you do write a law, submit it, and it becomes law, then you lose all rights to that intellectual property. Period. Laws are written by (theoretically) and property of the state -- which means it belongs to the people. Your tax dollars paid for it, you should be able to use it as you see fit.
I wonder why every law professional contacted is weighing in on the side of the guy who posted it on the internet in the first place. Maybe because letting someone else own the law is dangerous and pretty much against everything this country stands for?
The problem is, which Dells were you dealing with? I used to work for Dell, and not all Dells are equal. The older Dells (pre-97) were not as easy to work on as the current series.
The Business lines, like the Poweredge and Optiplexes are a b*tch to upgrade. They are highly propriatary, much on the order of a Compaq. There's a reason for this. Most businesses want it that way. That way, their employees don't bring their ElCheapo motherboard/proc/memory/etc to work and exchange it with the good Dell one in their office machine. On the other side, the cases are engineered for quick, easy extraction of all components. This is so the IT staff doesn't have to spend thirty minutes replacing a motherboard, they spend five. Of course, if you've never dealt with one, it takes a bit to figure out all the tricks -- and every model of these machines has different tricks.
The home lines, the Diminsions, are basic ATX motherboards and cases. They are designed so that you can continually upgrade without having to go back to Dell to buy specialized components. The cases are roomy, easy to work in, and usually have extra bays. I've never experienced any problems upgrading these machines with whatever parts I pulled off the shelf.
The only reason I didn't buy a Dell the last time I bought a computer is that they wouldn't sell me a computer with the T-bird processor.
...and it will eventually swing the other way. I think we're reaching the beginnings of the end.
This is just another step. Lawyers will keep trying to clamp down on intellectual property until we finally say "ENOUGH". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should go out and pilfer every piece of IP that isn't secured (and even try to get the ones that are). But, at some point, Joe Sixpack will realize how insanely stupid it is for him to pay $0.076 for a tune on his Nokia phone. One that may or may not be copyrighted or may not even really resemble the original song. He'll then start wondering why CDs have never come down in price and why the artist (who we only want to protect, remember?) gets so very little. Then he'll wonder why he can't play his new "enhanced" music media in the car AND at home. Then he'll wonder why he spends so much money on IP in the first place.
Yes, it's fun to have a unique ring on my phone (mine happens to play Europe's Final Countdown). I wouldn't pay extra for the benefit. I coded mine from some very old sheet music I had laying around. I don't know if that's copyright infringement, but I do know I could play it on my keyboard in 1987, and I could even program my keyboard to play it ad infinitum if I so chose. I don't see the difference between it and my phone. If anything, the phone is lesser quality.
At any rate, back to the original conversation. The record labels are shooting themselves in the foot. Even Wal-Mart figured out that to get people in the door, you've got give a little bit away. They can lock down every musical format they want, make it where it's not usable any more, and guess what? Their customer base will die out. I'm quite sure they'll just blame it on piracy though, like they always do.
I'm just waiting patiently for the day the pendulum starts swinging back the other way. More and more people are getting appalled by the increased prices, restricted uses, and gestapo tactics. When they finally get this phone thing locked down, I'm sure it'll be about as useful as www.lyrics.ch.
It depends on if you are a contract worker or if you are an hourly worker. Sounds rudimentary, but there is a difference.
As a contractor, you are saying, "I will farm out my labor to you for $xx/hour, overtime or not for as many hours as I can work and you need me to work." Well, not exactly, you can certainly negotiate overtime pay for over 40 hours, I've done it. Hell, you can theoretically negotiate overtime pay for every hour over five -- but I don't know many employers that will bite. As a contractor, you are bound to the terms of the contract you sign when you start working, whatever the terms of that contract are. Keep in mind you are not an employee of said company, you are just doing work for them.
As an hourly employee, you are directly working for the company, and they are required by law to give you time and a half for any hours over 40. There's also a lot of laws about break times, and other things, but I haven't been a true hourly employee in so long, I can't remember.
But, I don't think they have to pay you when you're on call. I've never had anyone pay me when I was hourly -- but not a contractor -- for being on call. If you're salary, it's just part of the job.
I think the problem is, yes, you are restricted, but you're not really working either. You can still go have dinner with your girlfriend, go to a movie, whatever. If you get called in, you're being paid for your interupted time. If not, it's not like you weren't able to enjoy your weekend.
Granted, you can't go out of town, and you can't drink or do drugs, but you're on call. This is part of your work responsibility, and you trade those few things you can't do for the oppourtunity to make a few extra bucks on the weekend.
You say your company is willing to work -- maybe you can get them to cave and pay you for the whole time you're on call. If you're hourly, they'll have to pay you time and a half for any hours over 40, though. Sweet gig if you can swing it. I don't know anyone that has, though.
Talk to a lawyer. $150US will be wisely spent here.
I knew someone would nail me on this. Yes, I read the lyrics in my car. Not line for line, or word for word... but yes, I did refer to them. Yes, it's dangerous, and I think people have too much distraction behind the wheel as it is. However, that's about the only place I have time to listen to my music, and refering to a 8.5x11 inch sheet of paper printed in 12 point type is infinately safer than trying to read a 5x5 inch piece of paper printed in 4 point.
Besides, honestly, most of my refering was done when stuck in gridlock or when I was a passenger. It's not like I was trying to read while driving 100 mph in a residential area.
What I hate to see, is that in the quest for total content control, they will likely make their site unusable, much like they did lyrics.ch. It will become less than useless. At that point, people won't use it, and the Harry Fox agency, and the RIAA, and the MPAA will say "well, see, people don't want to pay for what they can get for free. Now we must go out and bust all the small people who are distributing this stuff."
Guess what, surprise, I would pay for stuff like this. Well, not tabs, because I don't play guitar. But, hey, if there was a place where I could get all the MP3s I could download in a month for $30, I'd sign up... or if I could get them for a reasonable price -- say $0.10 a piece. A place where downloads didn't time out, and quality was certain. Or, if I could subscribe to lyrics.ch, pay a minute monthly fee, and know that the lyrics were correct.
Are there people who will steal IP rather than pay for it? Sure. There are people (who can certainly afford it) who shoplift rather than pay for merchandise. Is that any reason to say that we shouldn't have stores or that theft prevention in those stores should degrade the quality of the product I'm buying?
Hey, I'm not saying that there should be NO IP laws, or that people shouldn't be able to make money off of IP. I'm a software programmer. I make most of my money because of IP.
However. The draconian IP laws we have in place are indeed destroying our intellectual underpinnings. Think about the video games you played as a kid. Those are protected under copyright 75 plus the life of the author -- bascially your whole life. Many of these games will not survive 75 years. There is no real profit for Atari to re-release a bunch of 2600 games, but at the same time, we're raising the next generation of game designers on copycat games (first person shooters, real-time stragegy, driving, martial arts fighting). I can remember when every game had a very unique strategy, look and feel to it. The ones that didn't, died. If you want to play any of those 2600 games now, the game manufacturers won't sell them to you, and they don't want you to grab them off the net, so you must find an old Atari 2600 somewhere that still works (good luck), with good controllers, and then find the games you want to play. Oh wait, the IP people don't like reseller shops -- remember the flack over used CDs?
Truth of the matter is, be it film, video games, music, books, or software, much of this IP loses it's commercial value within five years. It's the odd thing that maintains it's worth more than 15 (Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). Most of this stuff will not survive for 75 years when it might possibly come out of copyright. They don't want to sell it to you now, because it costs too much for too small a profit. They do want to hang on it, on the off chance it becomes valuable. Only problem is, they are looking at the dollar signs, they have no real interest in preserving history. When these things are lost (and some things are already lost, try to find a good copy of Metropolis), they cannot be regained.
The fact they'd rather clamp down and control content rather than sell us the very thing we're stealing -- well, that's just bad business and we shouldn't protect that with law.
Anyone remember lyrics.ch? I do. I remember when it was the place to go to get lyrics to songs. Sure, the song lyrics were copyrighted, but lyrics.ch didn't exist to defy copyright. It was there so you could look up the half-mumbled lyrics to that new song you heard yesterday -- so you could sing along, and possibly enjoy the song more. Or, if you were a parent, you could actually see what your kids were listening to without having to listen to it yourself for extended periods of time. Keep in mind, not all CDs contain lyrics (though thankfully, most do). I used to print out pages and pages of song lyrics for the privacy of my living room (the print on CDs tends to be really small too) or to refer to in the car.
Apparently the Harry Fox agency didn't like that. And, they ruined lyrics.ch. They tried to change it, and in their zeal for total content control, they made it unusable. Now, you can't print the lyrics, and you can't scroll back to read the ones just displayed, you can't even control the speed of the scrolling. Plus, most songs aren't even listed. Great solution guys. I can only see how lyrics.ch helped promote music, but copyright is king today.
Now, I see they're going to do it with guitar tabs. Nevermind that some of these tabs (as was some of the lyrics on lyrics.ch) are "backward engineered", in that they are other people's interpretations of what the lyrics or tabs might be or probably are. They'll be determined to keep control to the point they'll make their tabs completely unusable. Copyright holders need to look at things in a different light.
Rather than asking how they can keep people from making money off their IP, they need to ask "why are people making money off this?" and "how can I make it better and easier to use, so they like my service better?" I'd be willing to pay a nominal fee for lyrics or tabs or god forbid, mp3s. If and only if, I can do whatever I want with them after I purchase them. Don't cripple them, don't worry about me misusing them. As it is, I'm not buying any intellectual property until these strong-arm tactics are under control.
Copyright law is ruining the intellectual underpinnings of our society.
I'd just like to say legalization != higher rates of drug use.
I'd like to think that one of our legal drugs in particular -- tobacco, is steadily declining in useage.
It's more addictive than many illegal drugs, and certainly much more harmful, and yet, people seem to be putting down their cigarettes and walking away from it droves. I remember a time when the smoking section in a restaurant was HUGE, and had the best tables the best views, etc, and the non-smokers were literally pushed back into a closet in the back. Now, many of those non-smoking areas are the smoking area, and in some places you can't even find a place to smoke.
Also, keep in mind, that just because the homeless guy down on 6th street is laying in the gutter with a bottle of alcohol does not mean that everyone's going to end up like he is.
Education and treatment are the cure, not locking people up and trampling the bill of rights.
Quite simply by ensuring that sentances are tough enough to make people think twice. People like Rockerfeller tried, but various liberals have been attempting to thwart such valiant efforts, making the penalties disproportional to the crime.
Yes, I'd say that our draconian drug policies are way out of proportion to the actual crime....oh wait, you think they should be harsher??? Let's see, you'd rather lock a pot smoker or drug abuser away for longer than the guy that just raped your sister? And, you'd rather lock him up in a place where he gets no help for his addiction -- and likely his addiction will become worse, so that when he finally is released, he's worse off than ever before and more likely to turn to drugs and crime? Makes sense to me.
By the way, Singapore has pretty rampant drug use, contrary to the popular propaganda you might hear. This report explains how prevalent drug use actually is.
Don't forget that to get such a handle on drug use requires a much more authoritarian governement than you're used to living in. We've made the bill of rights a bunch of toilet paper in the war on drugs, but to achieve Singaporean "control", you might as well toss it out the window.
The main problem with punishing consentual crimes, is that to be effective, crime must be punished quickly, consistently, and proportional to the crime. Everyone speeds, why? Because usually people don't feel they are doing anything truly wrong -- though it's against the law, and they will get away with it most of the time. Even when they get caught, many times the officer will let them off with a warning or a simple verbal repremand. The punsihment is usually proportional, but if people were going to jail for years for speeding, you'd have a lot of civil disobedience and uproar going on.
Ever since I got her her own computer, I've had to put the damn cat assistant on her machine. She just loved to watch him... watch him sleep, shred files, take notes, etc. I have to admit he was a lot less annoying than the paperclip.
So that's one person that will miss the assistant, albeit not the paperclip ("he scares me", she says). I'll also kinda miss him, because I actually started getting into what made it tick. It seemed to be fairly responsive to her needs (though not mine) and it seemed to have a bit of fuzzy logic going on, remembering what it had taught you in the past. I also liked the fact that the longer you left it on, the more animations it unlocked -- and the more frequently the rare animations happened. It helped keep his prowling about from getting completely old.
I'm going to hate telling her that the next office won't include her little friend.
We won't have to teach them. This CD is broken, and Joe Sixpack will notice.
He's going to bring that CD to work and try to play it on his computer at work -- and it's not going to play. Or, he'll try to play on the computer at home. Or, he'll try it somewhere, eventually, where it doesn't work.
And that's when Joe is going to get very, very pissed off. He doesn't want to hear why it won't play or why he needs to buy a new CD player ("I just bought this five years ago, whaddya mean I gotta buy a new on'?") or anything. He just knows that it doesn't work and it should. If he can't return it or get a non-defective one, he's gonna be even more pissed.
There's a reason why most software copy protection has gone away. In time, this too will pass.
You can certainly bit-copy it. But, that's not really what they are trying to prevent. They are trying to prevent you moving the data to another format -- to use in a different player or in a different location. All fair use, mind you...
I think what they are relying on is MPAA vs. 2600. The judge (Kaplan?) said that fair use was still intact because you could still get the information on other, analog, media. Not really the same thing, but since we use a tort law system (based on previous court cases) it suddenly is. Wonderful.
I want them to explain to my mother when the CD she just bought won't play in her car or in her computer.
Trust me, she's going to be calling me, saying "this new CD won't play in my computer... why not?" I want them to explain to her that they deliberately did it, there's nothing wrong with the CD (other than they broke it, and there's only broken copies around) or her CD-ROM, they are just afraid she's going to distribute it over the net. Please do that for me.
I wish I could say I'm not buying any more CDs, but I've already done that. Did that last year -- not because of Napster but because I'm tired of the strong-arm tactics and "sue everyone" stance. It's a cartel, an organized monopoly of five big companies. Now, they want to do away with the CD player all together -- because it's become too easy to pirate. Not that they weren't raking money in hand over fist or anything. Now, they want you to replace all the media players you've currently got, and all your media once again.
I don't think it's going to fly this time. They made an almost perfect media in CD. Small enough, durable enough, direct track access, and any improvement in sound Joe Sixpack won't notice nor will he pay extra for it. Joe's just going to realize that new discs won't play in his current player, and they want him to buy a new one -- that won't play any of his old music. And, there's no benefit to the new music! Think that won't piss Joe off?
And hey, where's all the fair use? I think the pendulum has swung far enough, and if the RIAA isn't careful, Congress will suddenly swing it right back the other way.
Why not do it like this. Have a key available on a remote site. Change the key randomly.
The plug-in ecrypts the filenames as they are uploaded into the database -- that way it doesn't change the filenames on your hard drive. It also does the encrypting for the search and decrypts the results automatically so that you don't have to figure out what the encrypted word is OR what the returned filenames are.
Napster didn't write it, so they aren't liable. They can't tell what the names are, because they are encrypted. And, even if they decrypt them, they've got three days to block them.
So, Napster becomes a list of nonsense, which with our new tool we can turn into something we can use.
If you are really going to do this -- do it right.
Most people (or at least those wanting to play at your location) have adaquate equipment. That means you'll need screaming equipment. Nice 19" or 21" monitors, Athlon T-Birds, GeForce 2 Ultras. People won't pay to play something they can play at home for free.
Also, create a "space" for each player. Nice big, dark walls around the computers, definately a wall behind. Also, get good nice comfortable headphones. You're going to want them to immerse themselves in your enviroment so they lose track of time. Isolate the players, but provide a conference type phone in each "booth" for team games.
It's gotta be comfortable, the computers gotta be fast, and the games are going to have to be good.
You obviously either don't have a large collection of music or a wide variety of musical taste. Or, maybe you just don't really care what you're listening to.
Why do I need to carry a bunch of CDs with me? Because I never know what I'll want to listen to. I might start out the day listening to Tori Amos, and then by the end of the day decide that I'm really in a Metallica mood or maybe a Stevie Ray Vaughn mood. I have no idea when I leave the house what kind of music I'm going to want to listen to on the drive home. Just to et a good representation of my 1000+ CD collection requires me to carry about 80 or so CDs around with me. That's about $1600 just sitting around in my car while I'm at work -- so I bring it in -- then it's $1600 laying on my desk at work. Then, invaribaly, I need one of the CDs laying around at home.
So, I coded every CD I own into MP3. That resides on a server at my house with a broadband connection. I can get my music from anywhere that has a broadband connection. Not only that, I can carry around the same 80 CDs (using the AIWA mp3 player in the car or the Rio Volt elsewhere), but have almost my complete collection at my fingertips, and if it's stolen a few hours of my time and $20 will replace it. The actual real CDs are safe (enough) at home.
And, as far as the pricing goes, I'm tired of the bullying tactics of the RIAA and the big four. I was mad when they started their crusade against the Diamond Rio and mp3s in general. I got madder when they started in on Napster (where I get music they don't want to sell me -- at any price). I finally got pissed when it was revealed they were price fixing (no really!) and only got a slap on the wrist for it.
It does not cost $20 to manufacture, ship, sell a CD and compensate the artist. Sell me a CD at a reasonable price, and allow me to get my music in the format I want it (more for the CD, less for the mp3 on line), AND uncrippled, so I can do what I want with it. As of now, I'm not buying any CDs. I haven't in over a year, and I'm getting to the point where I don't miss it. I used to be one of the big four's biggest customers, now I am not a customer at all -- and will not be until they get off their high horse.
The MPAA should watch out too, because right now I'm about half satisfied with them. I think $15-20 is fair for a DVD, it costs that much to go see the movie at the theatre -- and even though I don't approve, I understand region incoding. However, the DeCSS thing is really leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Plus, I wonder if I wouldn't spend more money on DVDs if they weren't just a bit cheaper.
He's repulsive enough I wouldn't be surprised if a letter bomb landed in his real mail box.
They've already bombed his email.
If I were him, I'd be seriously watching my back. He's costing a lot of people a lot of money -- and some of these people don't even live here. How hard would a mailbomb mailed from russia be to track down?
I seriously doubt he'd go fscking with the mafia here in the States, but he's definately fscking with the mafia over in Russia -- and I'd be willing to be they're a bit more lawless and tame than they are here.
First of all, I haven't bought a CD since the RIAA started their suit against Napster with no viable alternative for getting the music I want at a reasonable price and being able to download it online.
Second of all, I was a hardcore CD buyer. I used to purchase at least three or four CDs a month. I've got a collection of over 1000 CDs. I don't buy CDs anymore. If I have to buy a CD, I'll buy it at the used CD store if I can find it, otherwise, I'll do without. It hasn't been easy and has taken a lot of willpower not to buy the CDs I want. Right now there's at least ten CDs I'd like to own -- and would own, but the RIAA's approach to protecting their monopoly has made me want to funnel as little money to their coffers as possible.
The very next thing I did was encode every one of my CDs to mp3, and store them on my harddrive, along with all the other "illegal" mp3s I possessed. Everyday I'm on Napster sharing these files, and I will be until it shuts down. Yes, it hurts my bandwidth, but I'm on a T1, and I'm not usually using much of the bandwidth anyway. On the occasion I need the full pipe, I'll shut Napster off until my work is done.
So, I was one of the RIAA's biggest customers, and now I am one of Napster's best friends and the RIAA's worst enemy. However, I won't touch the Napster II with a ten-foot-pole. I was going to subscribe and continue to offer my music and bandwith -- for free. But, I won't anymore. When will the record companies get it through their head that we don't want crippled technology? I don't want a file that will only play on my computer. I don't want a file that I have to manipulate if I want to play it something other than their "authorized" player -- what do you want to bet these new "mp3s" will only play in Napster. The consumer doesn't want crippled technology with no other benefits -- that's why the original Divx never took off. And, now that these people have tasted mp3, they won't want something less than that.
So. Good job, Napster. You just killed the overwhelming reason people were using your service. With all the new mp3 players out there, including the new car players, why would someone want a different format now?
And good fscking job RIAA. You've just alienated 5 million of your best customers. Good job. That's a great strategy. Well, it is if you have a monopoly -- which you do. However, you will not have this monopoly forever. Enjoy your kingdom while it lasts. Your serfs are leaving the castle, and you're not going to be able to get them back. In fact, you've just given the finger to the most loyal and "hardworking" of your servants. No viable alternative is in the works or exists. Nothing to capitalize on what Napster has shown you. People will pay for this music, you know, even the old back catalog stuff that should have been in the public domain by now. But, they will not pay your overpriced fees for it, and they won't pay it if you won't let them do what they want with the file.
There was an oppourtunity here -- and both Napster and the RIAA missed it. As I've been saying for years, mp3 is a bus: you can either get on and ride, or you can be run over by it. The RIAA and Napster could have ridden togther into a glorious future -- now they'll just get run over.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are a lot of crack addicts that started with pot. I'm also pretty sure that most of them probably "did" alcohol or cigarettes before that. I'm also pretty sure most of them ate candy before they did marijuana. Ban this evil gateway candy before it leads kids to marijuana!
Studies actually show that the majority of pot smokers do not move on to harder and more addictive drugs. You CAN make a inference this way -- but it does not work the other way around. Plus, the sad thing is, we send our pot smokers to an unregulated supplier to get their drugs. There's nothing preventing them from selling it to minors or lacing it with other drugs or from saying "hey, I'm out of that today, but here's something else you might like."
And, you know what, if you legalize marijuana, cocaine users and crack users and whatever are, of course, going to pursue the same route. And would it be so bad? We remove a black market entirely, along with it's assorted crime and negative influences. We can regulate the distribution. We can better keep it out of the hands of minors and people who have problems regulating their intake. We can bring the prices down to a reasonable level, generate a new tax for the government, and create a new business. We can start educating people with facts and not fear and propaganda. We can actually offer treatment, rather than imprisonment for those with a problem. We don't think locking up an alcoholic will solve their problem, but apparently, we think it will cause a herion addict to "come to their senses."
By the way, drug abusers don't steal to support their habit, they steal because the prices are artificially inflated, and there's no one they can turn to when their problem gets out of hand.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
Sounds like you've been spoon fed for a while yourself. Go read some literature, go see how Amsterdam is handling their drug "problem".
This isn't quite the same as being in the state's Senate or HoR, but I'm tired of the disconnect of politicians with their constituents and the apparent disregard for the rights of the average citizen. It seems the Republicans want to give business ultimate rule of law and the Democrats want to lock down the general population so that nothing bad ever befalls them -- regardless of the consequences on people, culture, or the things that make this country great.
So, does anyone know how to run for a seat in the House?
However, I think the perpetual extension of copyright is bad. It's the rare piece of work, like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon which is profitable ten or more years after it's release. These things are generally regarded as classics. With perpetual copyright, we stand to lose those things completely. I'm quite sure that there are computer games we've already lost. Being able to copy these things allows those who don't care about profit, or those who can pursue a miniscule profit to ensure that these things survive.
Would we be better off without the works of Shakespeare or Chopin or Van Gogh? I think not. But, then I'm writing on Slashdot, so I'm just preaching to the choir.
Hopefully there will be a revolution soon -- but I don't count on it.
Is there anyone who doesn't think copyright is out of control now? Anyone? Bueller?
Let's see, here's something I wrote. I think it should be law. I copyright it, submit it, and now it is law. However, since I own the copyright, I won't let you read it, not even for one million dollars. Nope. Just hope you don't violate it. I'll be sure to let you know when you do.
The precident here is terrible. One, we shouldn't be rubber stamping laws for corporations. Two, if you do write a law, submit it, and it becomes law, then you lose all rights to that intellectual property. Period. Laws are written by (theoretically) and property of the state -- which means it belongs to the people. Your tax dollars paid for it, you should be able to use it as you see fit.
I wonder why every law professional contacted is weighing in on the side of the guy who posted it on the internet in the first place. Maybe because letting someone else own the law is dangerous and pretty much against everything this country stands for?
The Business lines, like the Poweredge and Optiplexes are a b*tch to upgrade. They are highly propriatary, much on the order of a Compaq. There's a reason for this. Most businesses want it that way. That way, their employees don't bring their ElCheapo motherboard/proc/memory/etc to work and exchange it with the good Dell one in their office machine. On the other side, the cases are engineered for quick, easy extraction of all components. This is so the IT staff doesn't have to spend thirty minutes replacing a motherboard, they spend five. Of course, if you've never dealt with one, it takes a bit to figure out all the tricks -- and every model of these machines has different tricks.
The home lines, the Diminsions, are basic ATX motherboards and cases. They are designed so that you can continually upgrade without having to go back to Dell to buy specialized components. The cases are roomy, easy to work in, and usually have extra bays. I've never experienced any problems upgrading these machines with whatever parts I pulled off the shelf.
The only reason I didn't buy a Dell the last time I bought a computer is that they wouldn't sell me a computer with the T-bird processor.
This is just another step. Lawyers will keep trying to clamp down on intellectual property until we finally say "ENOUGH". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should go out and pilfer every piece of IP that isn't secured (and even try to get the ones that are). But, at some point, Joe Sixpack will realize how insanely stupid it is for him to pay $0.076 for a tune on his Nokia phone. One that may or may not be copyrighted or may not even really resemble the original song. He'll then start wondering why CDs have never come down in price and why the artist (who we only want to protect, remember?) gets so very little. Then he'll wonder why he can't play his new "enhanced" music media in the car AND at home. Then he'll wonder why he spends so much money on IP in the first place.
Yes, it's fun to have a unique ring on my phone (mine happens to play Europe's Final Countdown). I wouldn't pay extra for the benefit. I coded mine from some very old sheet music I had laying around. I don't know if that's copyright infringement, but I do know I could play it on my keyboard in 1987, and I could even program my keyboard to play it ad infinitum if I so chose. I don't see the difference between it and my phone. If anything, the phone is lesser quality.
At any rate, back to the original conversation. The record labels are shooting themselves in the foot. Even Wal-Mart figured out that to get people in the door, you've got give a little bit away. They can lock down every musical format they want, make it where it's not usable any more, and guess what? Their customer base will die out. I'm quite sure they'll just blame it on piracy though, like they always do.
I'm just waiting patiently for the day the pendulum starts swinging back the other way. More and more people are getting appalled by the increased prices, restricted uses, and gestapo tactics. When they finally get this phone thing locked down, I'm sure it'll be about as useful as www.lyrics.ch.
As a contractor, you are saying, "I will farm out my labor to you for $xx/hour, overtime or not for as many hours as I can work and you need me to work." Well, not exactly, you can certainly negotiate overtime pay for over 40 hours, I've done it. Hell, you can theoretically negotiate overtime pay for every hour over five -- but I don't know many employers that will bite. As a contractor, you are bound to the terms of the contract you sign when you start working, whatever the terms of that contract are. Keep in mind you are not an employee of said company, you are just doing work for them.
As an hourly employee, you are directly working for the company, and they are required by law to give you time and a half for any hours over 40. There's also a lot of laws about break times, and other things, but I haven't been a true hourly employee in so long, I can't remember.
I think the problem is, yes, you are restricted, but you're not really working either. You can still go have dinner with your girlfriend, go to a movie, whatever. If you get called in, you're being paid for your interupted time. If not, it's not like you weren't able to enjoy your weekend.
Granted, you can't go out of town, and you can't drink or do drugs, but you're on call. This is part of your work responsibility, and you trade those few things you can't do for the oppourtunity to make a few extra bucks on the weekend.
You say your company is willing to work -- maybe you can get them to cave and pay you for the whole time you're on call. If you're hourly, they'll have to pay you time and a half for any hours over 40, though. Sweet gig if you can swing it. I don't know anyone that has, though.
Talk to a lawyer. $150US will be wisely spent here.
Besides, honestly, most of my refering was done when stuck in gridlock or when I was a passenger. It's not like I was trying to read while driving 100 mph in a residential area.
What I hate to see, is that in the quest for total content control, they will likely make their site unusable, much like they did lyrics.ch. It will become less than useless. At that point, people won't use it, and the Harry Fox agency, and the RIAA, and the MPAA will say "well, see, people don't want to pay for what they can get for free. Now we must go out and bust all the small people who are distributing this stuff."
Guess what, surprise, I would pay for stuff like this. Well, not tabs, because I don't play guitar. But, hey, if there was a place where I could get all the MP3s I could download in a month for $30, I'd sign up... or if I could get them for a reasonable price -- say $0.10 a piece. A place where downloads didn't time out, and quality was certain. Or, if I could subscribe to lyrics.ch, pay a minute monthly fee, and know that the lyrics were correct.
Are there people who will steal IP rather than pay for it? Sure. There are people (who can certainly afford it) who shoplift rather than pay for merchandise. Is that any reason to say that we shouldn't have stores or that theft prevention in those stores should degrade the quality of the product I'm buying?
However. The draconian IP laws we have in place are indeed destroying our intellectual underpinnings. Think about the video games you played as a kid. Those are protected under copyright 75 plus the life of the author -- bascially your whole life. Many of these games will not survive 75 years. There is no real profit for Atari to re-release a bunch of 2600 games, but at the same time, we're raising the next generation of game designers on copycat games (first person shooters, real-time stragegy, driving, martial arts fighting). I can remember when every game had a very unique strategy, look and feel to it. The ones that didn't, died. If you want to play any of those 2600 games now, the game manufacturers won't sell them to you, and they don't want you to grab them off the net, so you must find an old Atari 2600 somewhere that still works (good luck), with good controllers, and then find the games you want to play. Oh wait, the IP people don't like reseller shops -- remember the flack over used CDs?
Truth of the matter is, be it film, video games, music, books, or software, much of this IP loses it's commercial value within five years. It's the odd thing that maintains it's worth more than 15 (Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). Most of this stuff will not survive for 75 years when it might possibly come out of copyright. They don't want to sell it to you now, because it costs too much for too small a profit. They do want to hang on it, on the off chance it becomes valuable. Only problem is, they are looking at the dollar signs, they have no real interest in preserving history. When these things are lost (and some things are already lost, try to find a good copy of Metropolis), they cannot be regained.
The fact they'd rather clamp down and control content rather than sell us the very thing we're stealing -- well, that's just bad business and we shouldn't protect that with law.
Apparently the Harry Fox agency didn't like that. And, they ruined lyrics.ch. They tried to change it, and in their zeal for total content control, they made it unusable. Now, you can't print the lyrics, and you can't scroll back to read the ones just displayed, you can't even control the speed of the scrolling. Plus, most songs aren't even listed. Great solution guys. I can only see how lyrics.ch helped promote music, but copyright is king today.
Now, I see they're going to do it with guitar tabs. Nevermind that some of these tabs (as was some of the lyrics on lyrics.ch) are "backward engineered", in that they are other people's interpretations of what the lyrics or tabs might be or probably are. They'll be determined to keep control to the point they'll make their tabs completely unusable. Copyright holders need to look at things in a different light.
Rather than asking how they can keep people from making money off their IP, they need to ask "why are people making money off this?" and "how can I make it better and easier to use, so they like my service better?" I'd be willing to pay a nominal fee for lyrics or tabs or god forbid, mp3s. If and only if, I can do whatever I want with them after I purchase them. Don't cripple them, don't worry about me misusing them. As it is, I'm not buying any intellectual property until these strong-arm tactics are under control.
Copyright law is ruining the intellectual underpinnings of our society.
I'd like to think that one of our legal drugs in particular -- tobacco, is steadily declining in useage.
It's more addictive than many illegal drugs, and certainly much more harmful, and yet, people seem to be putting down their cigarettes and walking away from it droves. I remember a time when the smoking section in a restaurant was HUGE, and had the best tables the best views, etc, and the non-smokers were literally pushed back into a closet in the back. Now, many of those non-smoking areas are the smoking area, and in some places you can't even find a place to smoke.
Also, keep in mind, that just because the homeless guy down on 6th street is laying in the gutter with a bottle of alcohol does not mean that everyone's going to end up like he is.
Education and treatment are the cure, not locking people up and trampling the bill of rights.
Yes, I'd say that our draconian drug policies are way out of proportion to the actual crime. ...oh wait, you think they should be harsher??? Let's see, you'd rather lock a pot smoker or drug abuser away for longer than the guy that just raped your sister? And, you'd rather lock him up in a place where he gets no help for his addiction -- and likely his addiction will become worse, so that when he finally is released, he's worse off than ever before and more likely to turn to drugs and crime? Makes sense to me.
By the way, Singapore has pretty rampant drug use, contrary to the popular propaganda you might hear. This report explains how prevalent drug use actually is.
Don't forget that to get such a handle on drug use requires a much more authoritarian governement than you're used to living in. We've made the bill of rights a bunch of toilet paper in the war on drugs, but to achieve Singaporean "control", you might as well toss it out the window.
The main problem with punishing consentual crimes, is that to be effective, crime must be punished quickly, consistently, and proportional to the crime. Everyone speeds, why? Because usually people don't feel they are doing anything truly wrong -- though it's against the law, and they will get away with it most of the time. Even when they get caught, many times the officer will let them off with a warning or a simple verbal repremand. The punsihment is usually proportional, but if people were going to jail for years for speeding, you'd have a lot of civil disobedience and uproar going on.
So that's one person that will miss the assistant, albeit not the paperclip ("he scares me", she says). I'll also kinda miss him, because I actually started getting into what made it tick. It seemed to be fairly responsive to her needs (though not mine) and it seemed to have a bit of fuzzy logic going on, remembering what it had taught you in the past. I also liked the fact that the longer you left it on, the more animations it unlocked -- and the more frequently the rare animations happened. It helped keep his prowling about from getting completely old.
I'm going to hate telling her that the next office won't include her little friend.
He's going to bring that CD to work and try to play it on his computer at work -- and it's not going to play. Or, he'll try to play on the computer at home. Or, he'll try it somewhere, eventually, where it doesn't work.
And that's when Joe is going to get very, very pissed off. He doesn't want to hear why it won't play or why he needs to buy a new CD player ("I just bought this five years ago, whaddya mean I gotta buy a new on'?") or anything. He just knows that it doesn't work and it should. If he can't return it or get a non-defective one, he's gonna be even more pissed.
There's a reason why most software copy protection has gone away. In time, this too will pass.
I think what they are relying on is MPAA vs. 2600. The judge (Kaplan?) said that fair use was still intact because you could still get the information on other, analog, media. Not really the same thing, but since we use a tort law system (based on previous court cases) it suddenly is. Wonderful.
Trust me, she's going to be calling me, saying "this new CD won't play in my computer... why not?" I want them to explain to her that they deliberately did it, there's nothing wrong with the CD (other than they broke it, and there's only broken copies around) or her CD-ROM, they are just afraid she's going to distribute it over the net. Please do that for me.
I wish I could say I'm not buying any more CDs, but I've already done that. Did that last year -- not because of Napster but because I'm tired of the strong-arm tactics and "sue everyone" stance. It's a cartel, an organized monopoly of five big companies. Now, they want to do away with the CD player all together -- because it's become too easy to pirate. Not that they weren't raking money in hand over fist or anything. Now, they want you to replace all the media players you've currently got, and all your media once again.
I don't think it's going to fly this time. They made an almost perfect media in CD. Small enough, durable enough, direct track access, and any improvement in sound Joe Sixpack won't notice nor will he pay extra for it. Joe's just going to realize that new discs won't play in his current player, and they want him to buy a new one -- that won't play any of his old music. And, there's no benefit to the new music! Think that won't piss Joe off?
And hey, where's all the fair use? I think the pendulum has swung far enough, and if the RIAA isn't careful, Congress will suddenly swing it right back the other way.
Fritz can't die alone -- abandoned in a space station!
I can only imagine how much you'd have to pay for access to support this kind of infrastructure.
Why not do it like this. Have a key available on a remote site. Change the key randomly.
The plug-in ecrypts the filenames as they are uploaded into the database -- that way it doesn't change the filenames on your hard drive. It also does the encrypting for the search and decrypts the results automatically so that you don't have to figure out what the encrypted word is OR what the returned filenames are.
Napster didn't write it, so they aren't liable. They can't tell what the names are, because they are encrypted. And, even if they decrypt them, they've got three days to block them.
So, Napster becomes a list of nonsense, which with our new tool we can turn into something we can use.
This could work. Maybe I should start on it now.
Most people (or at least those wanting to play at your location) have adaquate equipment. That means you'll need screaming equipment. Nice 19" or 21" monitors, Athlon T-Birds, GeForce 2 Ultras. People won't pay to play something they can play at home for free.
Also, create a "space" for each player. Nice big, dark walls around the computers, definately a wall behind. Also, get good nice comfortable headphones. You're going to want them to immerse themselves in your enviroment so they lose track of time. Isolate the players, but provide a conference type phone in each "booth" for team games.
It's gotta be comfortable, the computers gotta be fast, and the games are going to have to be good.
Why do I need to carry a bunch of CDs with me? Because I never know what I'll want to listen to. I might start out the day listening to Tori Amos, and then by the end of the day decide that I'm really in a Metallica mood or maybe a Stevie Ray Vaughn mood. I have no idea when I leave the house what kind of music I'm going to want to listen to on the drive home. Just to et a good representation of my 1000+ CD collection requires me to carry about 80 or so CDs around with me. That's about $1600 just sitting around in my car while I'm at work -- so I bring it in -- then it's $1600 laying on my desk at work. Then, invaribaly, I need one of the CDs laying around at home.
So, I coded every CD I own into MP3. That resides on a server at my house with a broadband connection. I can get my music from anywhere that has a broadband connection. Not only that, I can carry around the same 80 CDs (using the AIWA mp3 player in the car or the Rio Volt elsewhere), but have almost my complete collection at my fingertips, and if it's stolen a few hours of my time and $20 will replace it. The actual real CDs are safe (enough) at home.
And, as far as the pricing goes, I'm tired of the bullying tactics of the RIAA and the big four. I was mad when they started their crusade against the Diamond Rio and mp3s in general. I got madder when they started in on Napster (where I get music they don't want to sell me -- at any price). I finally got pissed when it was revealed they were price fixing (no really!) and only got a slap on the wrist for it.
It does not cost $20 to manufacture, ship, sell a CD and compensate the artist. Sell me a CD at a reasonable price, and allow me to get my music in the format I want it (more for the CD, less for the mp3 on line), AND uncrippled, so I can do what I want with it. As of now, I'm not buying any CDs. I haven't in over a year, and I'm getting to the point where I don't miss it. I used to be one of the big four's biggest customers, now I am not a customer at all -- and will not be until they get off their high horse.
The MPAA should watch out too, because right now I'm about half satisfied with them. I think $15-20 is fair for a DVD, it costs that much to go see the movie at the theatre -- and even though I don't approve, I understand region incoding. However, the DeCSS thing is really leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Plus, I wonder if I wouldn't spend more money on DVDs if they weren't just a bit cheaper.
He's repulsive enough I wouldn't be surprised if a letter bomb landed in his real mail box. They've already bombed his email. If I were him, I'd be seriously watching my back. He's costing a lot of people a lot of money -- and some of these people don't even live here. How hard would a mailbomb mailed from russia be to track down? I seriously doubt he'd go fscking with the mafia here in the States, but he's definately fscking with the mafia over in Russia -- and I'd be willing to be they're a bit more lawless and tame than they are here.
First of all, I haven't bought a CD since the RIAA started their suit against Napster with no viable alternative for getting the music I want at a reasonable price and being able to download it online.
Second of all, I was a hardcore CD buyer. I used to purchase at least three or four CDs a month. I've got a collection of over 1000 CDs. I don't buy CDs anymore. If I have to buy a CD, I'll buy it at the used CD store if I can find it, otherwise, I'll do without. It hasn't been easy and has taken a lot of willpower not to buy the CDs I want. Right now there's at least ten CDs I'd like to own -- and would own, but the RIAA's approach to protecting their monopoly has made me want to funnel as little money to their coffers as possible.
The very next thing I did was encode every one of my CDs to mp3, and store them on my harddrive, along with all the other "illegal" mp3s I possessed. Everyday I'm on Napster sharing these files, and I will be until it shuts down. Yes, it hurts my bandwidth, but I'm on a T1, and I'm not usually using much of the bandwidth anyway. On the occasion I need the full pipe, I'll shut Napster off until my work is done.
So, I was one of the RIAA's biggest customers, and now I am one of Napster's best friends and the RIAA's worst enemy. However, I won't touch the Napster II with a ten-foot-pole. I was going to subscribe and continue to offer my music and bandwith -- for free. But, I won't anymore. When will the record companies get it through their head that we don't want crippled technology? I don't want a file that will only play on my computer. I don't want a file that I have to manipulate if I want to play it something other than their "authorized" player -- what do you want to bet these new "mp3s" will only play in Napster. The consumer doesn't want crippled technology with no other benefits -- that's why the original Divx never took off. And, now that these people have tasted mp3, they won't want something less than that.
So. Good job, Napster. You just killed the overwhelming reason people were using your service. With all the new mp3 players out there, including the new car players, why would someone want a different format now?
And good fscking job RIAA. You've just alienated 5 million of your best customers. Good job. That's a great strategy. Well, it is if you have a monopoly -- which you do. However, you will not have this monopoly forever. Enjoy your kingdom while it lasts. Your serfs are leaving the castle, and you're not going to be able to get them back. In fact, you've just given the finger to the most loyal and "hardworking" of your servants. No viable alternative is in the works or exists. Nothing to capitalize on what Napster has shown you. People will pay for this music, you know, even the old back catalog stuff that should have been in the public domain by now. But, they will not pay your overpriced fees for it, and they won't pay it if you won't let them do what they want with the file.
There was an oppourtunity here -- and both Napster and the RIAA missed it. As I've been saying for years, mp3 is a bus: you can either get on and ride, or you can be run over by it. The RIAA and Napster could have ridden togther into a glorious future -- now they'll just get run over.