The complaint is not that someone is going after Napster Users, but that they're illegally going after Napster Users, by violating their civil rights ("Innocent until proven guilty.")
Copyright.net isn't intentionally breaking the law--they've just screwed up. It happens. Especially when people do stuff to make it look like they're breaking the law.
Here's an example. Suppose that, shortly after a bank robery occured, you ran around town with a ski mask over your head, a plastic gun tucked in your pants, and a sack of monopoly money over your shoulder. You would quite likely be arrested. What a surprise.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
That's a principle of criminal justice. These people are being accused, not convicted, of a crime.
(And it's a sad, sad, day when a troll gets modded up to +5 as "informative")
People have already pointed this out, but there are two essential differences between SPP and tipping waiters:
1) Tipping is not anonymous, and failure to tip incurs societal disapproval (people think you're a cheap bastard).
2) You personally benefit by tipping, assuming you return to the restaurant (you'll get good service next time)
If you actually think voluntary tipping is viable for the music industry, check out Fairtunes's stats. They've been running for something like 8 months, and have only brought in about $7000 US for artists. I believe the two university students who started Fairtunes have spent over $10,000 on equipment and development costs. Unless those numbers increase drastically in the next year or so, I'd say voluntary music tipping is a failure. You can't fault their implementation, either--it's a very well-thought-out system, and I can't think of how they could make it better. The problem is that people suck. If we were all perfectly moral, Fairtunes would work. Too bad it ain't so.
Right. And I respectfully disagree that they'd be outcompeted by other services, since even Napster couldn't run without some income forever. (I'm not convinced they'd last long even without the RIAA.)
Let's say Napster and Sonyster each decide to charge $5/mo for unlimited access. They have the same overhead, except Sony also has to pay production costs and royalties to artists. Without the ability to prevent others from stealing your creations, the most successful businesses are the "leaches" that create nothing.
And whether they like the service model or not, that's the only model there's going to be.
I think you're probably right here.
I also dispute that true artists wouldn't make music because "there's no money in it." The world would be better off without the "artists" so motivated, IMHO.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that all good artists are motivated by things other than money. Even so, we'll still get more good music by paying artists. If we don't pay them, then they have to work a second job to pay for food and expenses, and will have less time to produce music. Assuming the number of "true" artists is fixed, eliminating artist compensation will reduce the amount of music out there, which is a bad thing.
In reality, I suspect that most artists are motivated by a mix of factors that includes desire for fame, joy of creating music, and making money. Almost everyone is a little greedy, either for money, fame, or power. Thus, the effects eliminating artist compensation could be larger that your premise (non-greedy artists) would suggest.
In other words, you think they should switch to the service model. That does seem like a good option, but they would quickly be outcompeted by other "services" that didn't have the extra overhead of actually paying production costs and royalties to the artists.
Net result: Nobody makes any new music (commercially), since there's no money in it.
Minor detail: The labels loan the artists some money--Every dollar spent on recording, packaging, promotion, distribution, plus all touring costs, comes out of the artist's pocket.
Good point, but your average contract is more than that. Not only do the artists have to pay back the "loan", but they lose ownership of their works, and they only get a small cut of the profit. If labels just functioned as a combination of consultant/bank/recording studio, then artists would only have to pay back these costs (plus interest), and would keep all the rest of the profits. Unfortunately, that ain't how it works.
You're missing a fundamental difference--these people aren't being convicted of a crime simply for using Napster. They're being threatened with legal action, which is a different thing.
You can bet the RIAA or whoever wouldn't go to court with only the name of a song, as recorded by a bot. They would, at the very least, download and listen to the song.
What's happening here is more like arresting someone for wearing a ski mask while loitering outside a recently-robbed bank. 99% of the time, they're guilty, and, for that other 1%, they'll be found innocent in a trial (or charges may be dropped if they have a good excuse).
Some people (*cough*Slashdot editors*cough*) seem to be waffling on this whole copyright issue.
When company X goes after Napster, they complain that Napster isn't breaking any laws--only some of the users are. "Napster shouldn't be responsible for its users' actions," is the message we get.
When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users, and should stick to the big fish to avoid pissing off consumers. "'Sharing' by individual users isn't a threat--it's commercial pirates the industry has to worry about," is what we hear in this case. These people also seem to think it's unfair to use technology to enforce copyright, but perfectly reasonable to use it to violate copyright.
So, which is it? Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster? Or is the message that we should we get rid of copyright altogether? If so, what will replace it?
Let me rebut some common responses before they happen:
Most artists don't make money anyway! Maybe so, but the possibility of "going big" motivates a lot of them. Then there's the fact that they need to eat and pay for recording studio time, etc. If they have to work a second job to support themselves, they'll have less time to produce music (which is clearly inefficient, if you know anything about economics).
The labels just produce crap like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
Music labels already rip off artists True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
But I do have a better system! It's the Street Performer Protocol The SPP is flawed for many reasons. Even having payments held in escrow upon condition of delivery of the work doesn't solve most of them. The most obvious of these flaws is the free rider problem. Essentially, it's in your best interest to let others pay, and not pay yourself, since you'll thereby save money and gain the same benefit. It's all basic economics, but I'll rehash a bit of it here: People make decisions based on marginal gain and cost. If you "pay" under the SPP, you have only a very small chance of actually influencing the outcome, whereas you do have a significant cost (the amount paid). Fundamentally, without copyright and other forms of protection, intellectual property becomes a public good--it is neither excludable nor rival. Private industry nearly always underproduces public goods, without some form of intervention.
To see SPP failing in action, look at what happened to Stephen King. After the novelty wore off, not enough people paid. Fortunately, King released the next installment anyway.
As another example of a failure of SPP, why don't we all voluntarily donate money to the government to pay off the debt? We'd all benefit from it. Strangely, it's not happening. The only way the debt gets paid off is through taxes, which are a way of ensuring that everyone pays in some semi-fair fashion.
I'm not going to try to condense an entire economics course here, but I will recommend a book on the subject that's funny and happens also to be educational: Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke.
I hope this provokes an intelligent debate, not a flame-fest. If you want to rebut my argument, please do, but please stay clear of ad hominem attacks. Obviously, I do have some bias, but I also recognize that the future of intellectual property poses a huge challenge, and one that nobody has solved. Any constructive input is welcome...
Yup. I tried it just the other week on my sixteen year-old Commodore 64. Some of the 5 1/4 floppies were dead, but my dog had a good time playing with those.
Spy Hunter still worked, but it was far, far easier than I had remembered... Maybe there actually is a reason why we stopped playing all those games.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Do not trifle with me.
The Second Amendment exists to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. Australia may not have the same, but enough geeks with guns should do the trick if push comes to shove.
OK, this is going to get modded down by some gun-control nut, but what the hell, I have lots of karma.
One thing I'd like to know is how public this bill was in Australia before it passed. Did people have a chance to write to their representatives, or did nobody hear about it until just now?
Oh I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where I wrote "Posts complaining about how stories aren't appropriate for Slashdot are as bad as replies to those posts." (explanation: self-effacing humour, dude)
Yeah, sorry, trying to do math homework at the same time. Complex humour and complex numbers don't always mix well.
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. [snip] In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing
I'm bitching about misleading stories, really. How many of those 300+ posts are from users who were mislead by the Slashdot story, and are either screaming about a non-issue, or (like me) bitching about how misleading the story was?
You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
Futility? I achieved my objective--I made some people laugh. Hell, one guy even said my post "is arguably the funniest, most intelligent post [he has] ever seen on Slashdot". You're right about one thing, though--why the hell am I bothering to defend my +5 post?
First of all, you're not an editor at slashdot so shut the hell up.
Chill out, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humour, dude.
Secondly, IP has probably never been a bigger issues than it is today, affected parties include both geeks and "gravelbangers".
Sure, IP in general is a big issue, but this is a relatively uncontroversial and non-noteworthy case of IP enforcement. Blizzard beat New Line to the punch in registering the "Diablo" movie mark, and now they're enforcing it. It's big guy-vs.-big guy, and the right one is winning. Aside from the fact that Blizzard also happens to make games, that's totally not a geek issue. Would you like to see similar stories like "Blizzard Janitor Charged with Assault of Junior Co-op Student", "Blizzard Handles an Isolated Incident of a Bad CD", etc.?
If they reveal something new (i.e Blizzard is planning on making a Diablo movie)
Then the story should have been "Blizzard to Make Diablo, Diablo II Movies". We don't need stories like this with inflammatory, misleading headlines. They decrease Slashdot's credibility, and make it impossible to rely on story descriptions to figure out what's going on.
Perhaps if enough people bitch about it, Hemos and CmdrTaco will do something to fix the submission process. Of course, not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at the issue rather than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you can still have a good laugh. Try it sometime.
My post was intended to be funny while containing a kernel of truth. I do suspect Heidi Wall is actually Larry Wall or a relative of his. I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyers bet on whether their lawsuits appear on Slashdot. (Note: getting mention on Slashdot motivates many people to do many strange things. The recent Hanging of a VW Bug off the Golden Gate is an example--one of the goals of the group was to get mentioned on Slashdot--yes, I do know one of them). Also, people don't seem to carefully read things before they post them...
Despite this, and my disclaimer, not one but two people have modded it down as a troll.
I think there is perhaps a Troll Union, with some members having moderator accounts. These Trollerators apply the [-1, Troll] option to any message they perceive as an unauthorized troll. Being semi-literate trolls, they are naturally unable to read through to the end and see that it is a joke.
I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. It's nice to see at least some people look before they flame.
Just in case you missed it, here's the summary: Blizzard already owns the "Diablo" movie mark. It was applied for years ago, and granted last year. New Line is trying to contest it, but Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to ask for an injunction.
Now that we've gotten that straight, I'd like to know why such a stupid story was posted. This is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Gavelbang: the Latest for Lawyers, and we should only be hearing about lawsuits if they are of some great import to the geek community (i.e., DeCSS, DMCA, etc.). The reasons I can see are as follows:
Theory 1: IP Lawyers have a betting pool on which of their lawsuits will make it onto Slashdot, and Hemos is getting kickbacks from Blizzard's legal team.
Supporting evidence: The stock of VA Linux, Slashdot's parent company, has tanked severely, leaving Hemos and CmdrTaco desperate for alternative sources of income.
Theory 2: Slashdot is run by trolls, who are, in turn, secretly controlled by leading figures in the open source community. These open source leaders hope to sow confusion and dismay among their enemies--the commercial software companies. Villifying a popular gamemaker is a stall tactic while Free Software hackers frantically try to make decent Free (as in software) games, games being the driving force behind the computer industry these days (what the hell else do you need a 1.2 GHz processor for?).
Supporting Evidence:Heidi Wall, arguably the most influential of the trolls since Signal 11 (check the number of fake Heidi Wall accounts), is really a pseudonym for Larry Wall. On "her" user info page, Heidi lists her email as heidi@heidiwall.NOcjb.SPAMnet. A quick visit to heidiwall.cjb.net will reveal that it's actually a mirror of www.perl.com. Furthermore, Heidi's.sig "Trust in god, but tie your camel", is obviously a reference to the Perl Camel. Was Signal 11 Linus Torvalds? Is Alan Cox the goatse guy? We may never know...
Theory 3: Nobody actually reads the stories they submit or post.
Supporting evidence: A good look at this should be sufficient, but if you want more, consider this very article.
Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?
Since they were granted the movie mark "Diablo" in July 2000, fool.
Theory 2 is my personal favourite, and also this guy's favourite, but YMMV. For the terminally clueless, this is supposed to be funny.
Seat belt laws make sense for children, but not for adults. (some) Children are not yet mature individuals capable of making their own informed decisions.
For adults, if they want to drive without seatbelts, let them. I don't think insurance companies should have to pay the full amount if they claim for any injuries that occured because they weren't wearing a seat belt, though.
Incidentally, I heard that seat belt laws have actually increased the rate of accidents, since people drive faster because they feel safer. More accidents, but any given accident is less likely to cause serious injury. Whether it's a net positive or negative, I don't know.
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 2
First of all, the life on Mars is probably extinct, except perhaps for isolated pockets that wouldn't be likely to be contaminated by a few manned probes.
Second, who the fuck cares about primitive bacteria? It's scientifically interesting, so we probably want to study it, but there's absolutely no good reason just to leave it alone. It's not sentient, it doesn't look cute, and it doesn't play an important role in our ecosystem.
Also, it's unlikely Earth bacteria would be able to out-compete Mars bacteria in their native environment. Our bacteria--particularly the ones that would be carried by humans--are not well-suited to surviving in the Mars environment, whereas Mars bacteria are presumably well-adapted.
Finally, if you haven't noticed, the Martian environment isn't exactly friendly right now. It's hard to imagine how we could make it worse (from a human habitation point of view).
I believe the Constitutional Amendment that repealed Prohibition also explicitly allowed individual states to pass laws restricting or banning the use of liquor. Given that, Utah is within Constitutional bounds to restrict alcohol (as long as they don't violate other parts of the Constitution).
The moral issue is different. Simply because the majority votes for something does not make it right--that's the classic "tyranny of the majority". Imagine 10 men and 1 woman stranded on a desert island. A vote is held, and by an overwhelming 10-to-1 margin, it is decided that the men should be able to freely have sex with the woman. Democratic, but definitely wrong.
Some rights are absolute, and cannot be taken away even by a democracy.
If I, while of sound mind and by my own free will, choose to engage in an activity which is dangerous to myself but not to others, nobody has the right to stop me. If the activity is dangerous to others (i.e., drunk driving), then it's a different matter.
Some people have already mentioned the parrot that can understand English. What they haven't made clear is just how sophisticated that parrot is.
When shown a purple square block and a purple triangular block, and asked "What is the same?", the parrot will reply "color", and when asked "What is different?" the parrot will say "shape". Furthermore, they've gotten the parrot to start teaching another parrot to speak English. On one occasion, the "teacher" parrot even told the "student" to "speak more clearly" when he pronounced the word paper incorrectly.
Does nobody have a sense of humour anymore? This is the second time in the past two days that I've been moderated down for disagreeing with the story in a humorous way.
I even tried to explain things to the crack-impaired moderators this time, just in case they didn't clue in to the fact that I was kidding. Sadly, they just don't care.
Really, most people have boring lives. Why would you want to read about someone else's life? Here's my guesses:
1) You're a psycho stalker. [bad]
2) Your life is even more boring. [bad]
3) You're addicted to websurfing and you've already reloaded/. 73 times today. [very bad]
Upon reflection, I realized what demographic this is targeted at: Asian girls whose families have lots of disposable income. There are lots of them at UBC, and the Flower Power iMac is exactly the kind of thing they go for (along with arcade games like Dance Dance Revolution, and those photo sticker booths)... That iMac was released at Macworld Japan, so it all sort of makes sense.
I know computers aren't just for guys, but you should realize that I would think a computer with Transformers written on the side would be equally silly and tacky.
Aesthetically pleasing computers are one thing, but these are the hi-tech equivalent of shag carpet.
Re:For the last time... (Copying DVDs)
on
The DeCSS Haiku
·
· Score: 2
Unless you either have a hacked player that does software decryption, or some other DeCSS-like program, you can't copy and play CSS-protected DVDs.
I'm guessing you're either decrypting them without realizing it (how are you copying the data to your hard drive?), you have a player that's been hacked to read data from anywhere, or you just have unencrypted DVDs.
While you can copy a DVD without DeCSS, it will be of no use to you. You can't bit-for-bit copy a CSS-protected DVD with a consumer DVD-RAM drive. There's some area on the DVD-RAM disc that's not writable by a DVD-RAM drive, and that is required for a CSS-protected DVD. To actually do a bit-for-bit copy, you need a professional DVD writer, which is not something that's widely available.
DeCSS does have legitimate uses, but it can be (and is) used to "rip" DVDs and convert them to DivX;-) format or other formats that are easily distributable across the net.
In other words, DeCSS is a device/algorithm that allows for the comprimise of access control mechanisms in such a manner as to allow illegal copying of DVDs. Furthermore, this form of copyright infringement holds the potential to decrease the commercial value of works protected by CSS. As broadband access becomes commonplace, piracy of movies could start to happen in a "Napster-like" fashion. This would interfere with the ability of movie studios to sell their content on demand over the internet.
The MPAA isn't as stupid as we like to think. They know that they have to stop this now to avoid future trouble. They're already experimenting with selling content online. They've learned from the mistakes of the RIAA.
There are legitimate uses for DeCSS (such as making a Linux DVD player), and that's why it should be legal. We shouldn't lie and claim it can't be used for piracy.
As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane. He deserves your sympathy and pity, not criticism.
As for the patent, hell, even Apple has published prior art (i.e., more than a year before the date of filing of the patent), and they're aware of it. If you look at the patent, you'll see a list of references that include volumes of Inside Macintosh from 1988. To a large extent, I think this patent is a defensive patent. Perhaps there is some legal patent mumbo-jumbo we're not aware of, too.
The only original innovation here seems to be the idea of having widgets behave in an entirely different way in different themes. Not a big step, or one that (IMHO) should be patentable, but the blame for allowing such a patent (and thus forcing companies to apply for them to avoid losing control over their own innovations) lies on the USPTO.
Slashdot Mirror
Where? Certainly not in this article.
:-)
The complaint is not that someone is going after Napster Users, but that they're illegally going after Napster Users, by violating their civil rights ("Innocent until proven guilty.")
Copyright.net isn't intentionally breaking the law--they've just screwed up. It happens. Especially when people do stuff to make it look like they're breaking the law.
Here's an example. Suppose that, shortly after a bank robery occured, you ran around town with a ski mask over your head, a plastic gun tucked in your pants, and a sack of monopoly money over your shoulder. You would quite likely be arrested. What a surprise.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
That's a principle of criminal justice. These people are being accused, not convicted, of a crime.
(And it's a sad, sad, day when a troll gets modded up to +5 as "informative")
Your post is only at +3 so far...
People have already pointed this out, but there are two essential differences between SPP and tipping waiters:
1) Tipping is not anonymous, and failure to tip incurs societal disapproval (people think you're a cheap bastard).
2) You personally benefit by tipping, assuming you return to the restaurant (you'll get good service next time)
If you actually think voluntary tipping is viable for the music industry, check out Fairtunes's stats. They've been running for something like 8 months, and have only brought in about $7000 US for artists. I believe the two university students who started Fairtunes have spent over $10,000 on equipment and development costs. Unless those numbers increase drastically in the next year or so, I'd say voluntary music tipping is a failure. You can't fault their implementation, either--it's a very well-thought-out system, and I can't think of how they could make it better. The problem is that people suck. If we were all perfectly moral, Fairtunes would work. Too bad it ain't so.
Right. And I respectfully disagree that they'd be outcompeted by other services, since even Napster couldn't run without some income forever. (I'm not convinced they'd last long even without the RIAA.)
Let's say Napster and Sonyster each decide to charge $5/mo for unlimited access. They have the same overhead, except Sony also has to pay production costs and royalties to artists. Without the ability to prevent others from stealing your creations, the most successful businesses are the "leaches" that create nothing.
And whether they like the service model or not, that's the only model there's going to be.
I think you're probably right here.
I also dispute that true artists wouldn't make music because "there's no money in it." The world would be better off without the "artists" so motivated, IMHO.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that all good artists are motivated by things other than money. Even so, we'll still get more good music by paying artists. If we don't pay them, then they have to work a second job to pay for food and expenses, and will have less time to produce music. Assuming the number of "true" artists is fixed, eliminating artist compensation will reduce the amount of music out there, which is a bad thing.
In reality, I suspect that most artists are motivated by a mix of factors that includes desire for fame, joy of creating music, and making money. Almost everyone is a little greedy, either for money, fame, or power. Thus, the effects eliminating artist compensation could be larger that your premise (non-greedy artists) would suggest.
In other words, you think they should switch to the service model. That does seem like a good option, but they would quickly be outcompeted by other "services" that didn't have the extra overhead of actually paying production costs and royalties to the artists.
Net result: Nobody makes any new music (commercially), since there's no money in it.
Minor detail: The labels loan the artists some money--Every dollar spent on recording, packaging, promotion, distribution, plus all touring costs, comes out of the artist's pocket.
Good point, but your average contract is more than that. Not only do the artists have to pay back the "loan", but they lose ownership of their works, and they only get a small cut of the profit. If labels just functioned as a combination of consultant/bank/recording studio, then artists would only have to pay back these costs (plus interest), and would keep all the rest of the profits. Unfortunately, that ain't how it works.
You're missing a fundamental difference--these people aren't being convicted of a crime simply for using Napster. They're being threatened with legal action, which is a different thing.
You can bet the RIAA or whoever wouldn't go to court with only the name of a song, as recorded by a bot. They would, at the very least, download and listen to the song.
What's happening here is more like arresting someone for wearing a ski mask while loitering outside a recently-robbed bank. 99% of the time, they're guilty, and, for that other 1%, they'll be found innocent in a trial (or charges may be dropped if they have a good excuse).
Some people (*cough*Slashdot editors*cough*) seem to be waffling on this whole copyright issue.
When company X goes after Napster, they complain that Napster isn't breaking any laws--only some of the users are. "Napster shouldn't be responsible for its users' actions," is the message we get.
When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users, and should stick to the big fish to avoid pissing off consumers. "'Sharing' by individual users isn't a threat--it's commercial pirates the industry has to worry about," is what we hear in this case. These people also seem to think it's unfair to use technology to enforce copyright, but perfectly reasonable to use it to violate copyright.
So, which is it? Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster? Or is the message that we should we get rid of copyright altogether? If so, what will replace it?
Let me rebut some common responses before they happen:
Most artists don't make money anyway!
Maybe so, but the possibility of "going big" motivates a lot of them. Then there's the fact that they need to eat and pay for recording studio time, etc. If they have to work a second job to support themselves, they'll have less time to produce music (which is clearly inefficient, if you know anything about economics).
The labels just produce crap like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
But I do have a better system! It's the Street Performer Protocol
The SPP is flawed for many reasons. Even having payments held in escrow upon condition of delivery of the work doesn't solve most of them. The most obvious of these flaws is the free rider problem. Essentially, it's in your best interest to let others pay, and not pay yourself, since you'll thereby save money and gain the same benefit. It's all basic economics, but I'll rehash a bit of it here: People make decisions based on marginal gain and cost. If you "pay" under the SPP, you have only a very small chance of actually influencing the outcome, whereas you do have a significant cost (the amount paid). Fundamentally, without copyright and other forms of protection, intellectual property becomes a public good--it is neither excludable nor rival. Private industry nearly always underproduces public goods, without some form of intervention.
To see SPP failing in action, look at what happened to Stephen King. After the novelty wore off, not enough people paid. Fortunately, King released the next installment anyway.
As another example of a failure of SPP, why don't we all voluntarily donate money to the government to pay off the debt? We'd all benefit from it. Strangely, it's not happening. The only way the debt gets paid off is through taxes, which are a way of ensuring that everyone pays in some semi-fair fashion.
I'm not going to try to condense an entire economics course here, but I will recommend a book on the subject that's funny and happens also to be educational: Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke.
I hope this provokes an intelligent debate, not a flame-fest. If you want to rebut my argument, please do, but please stay clear of ad hominem attacks. Obviously, I do have some bias, but I also recognize that the future of intellectual property poses a huge challenge, and one that nobody has solved. Any constructive input is welcome...
can YOU still read that old code from your C64?
Yup. I tried it just the other week on my sixteen year-old Commodore 64. Some of the 5 1/4 floppies were dead, but my dog had a good time playing with those.
Spy Hunter still worked, but it was far, far easier than I had remembered... Maybe there actually is a reason why we stopped playing all those games.
Your sig is highly appropriate.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Do not trifle with me.
The Second Amendment exists to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. Australia may not have the same, but enough geeks with guns should do the trick if push comes to shove.
OK, this is going to get modded down by some gun-control nut, but what the hell, I have lots of karma.
One thing I'd like to know is how public this bill was in Australia before it passed. Did people have a chance to write to their representatives, or did nobody hear about it until just now?
Oh I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where I wrote "Posts complaining about how stories aren't appropriate for Slashdot are as bad as replies to those posts." (explanation: self-effacing humour, dude)
Yeah, sorry, trying to do math homework at the same time. Complex humour and complex numbers don't always mix well.
We don't need posters bitching (albeit couched in 'humour') about irrelevant stories. [snip] In any case, this thread has 300+ comments and growing
I'm bitching about misleading stories, really. How many of those 300+ posts are from users who were mislead by the Slashdot story, and are either screaming about a non-issue, or (like me) bitching about how misleading the story was?
You see the futility of the 'this story is irrelevant' post now?
Futility? I achieved my objective--I made some people laugh. Hell, one guy even said my post "is arguably the funniest, most intelligent post [he has] ever seen on Slashdot". You're right about one thing, though--why the hell am I bothering to defend my +5 post?
First of all, you're not an editor at slashdot so shut the hell up.
Chill out, take a deep breath, and get a sense of humour, dude.
Secondly, IP has probably never been a bigger issues than it is today, affected parties include both geeks and "gravelbangers".
Sure, IP in general is a big issue, but this is a relatively uncontroversial and non-noteworthy case of IP enforcement. Blizzard beat New Line to the punch in registering the "Diablo" movie mark, and now they're enforcing it. It's big guy-vs.-big guy, and the right one is winning. Aside from the fact that Blizzard also happens to make games, that's totally not a geek issue. Would you like to see similar stories like "Blizzard Janitor Charged with Assault of Junior Co-op Student", "Blizzard Handles an Isolated Incident of a Bad CD", etc.?
If they reveal something new (i.e Blizzard is planning on making a Diablo movie)
Then the story should have been "Blizzard to Make Diablo, Diablo II Movies". We don't need stories like this with inflammatory, misleading headlines. They decrease Slashdot's credibility, and make it impossible to rely on story descriptions to figure out what's going on.
Perhaps if enough people bitch about it, Hemos and CmdrTaco will do something to fix the submission process. Of course, not liking to be a bitch, I prefer to poke fun at the issue rather than be all serious and boring. That way, even if you disagree with me, you can still have a good laugh. Try it sometime.
I sort of thought the definition of a "troll" was a subhuman person who posted crap designed to get unwary Slashdotters pissed off.
:-)
:-)
If the word is more general and applies to people who post genuinely funny stuff, for the amusement of all, then maybe I am a troll
Of course, I also post the occasional point-by-point rebuttal.
My post was intended to be funny while containing a kernel of truth. I do suspect Heidi Wall is actually Larry Wall or a relative of his. I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyers bet on whether their lawsuits appear on Slashdot. (Note: getting mention on Slashdot motivates many people to do many strange things. The recent Hanging of a VW Bug off the Golden Gate is an example--one of the goals of the group was to get mentioned on Slashdot--yes, I do know one of them). Also, people don't seem to carefully read things before they post them...
Despite this, and my disclaimer, not one but two people have modded it down as a troll.
Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Insightful=1, Funny=3, Total=6.
I think there is perhaps a Troll Union, with some members having moderator accounts. These Trollerators apply the [-1, Troll] option to any message they perceive as an unauthorized troll. Being semi-literate trolls, they are naturally unable to read through to the end and see that it is a joke.
Just in case you missed it, here's the summary: Blizzard already owns the "Diablo" movie mark. It was applied for years ago, and granted last year. New Line is trying to contest it, but Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to ask for an injunction.
Now that we've gotten that straight, I'd like to know why such a stupid story was posted. This is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Gavelbang: the Latest for Lawyers, and we should only be hearing about lawsuits if they are of some great import to the geek community (i.e., DeCSS, DMCA, etc.). The reasons I can see are as follows:
Theory 1: IP Lawyers have a betting pool on which of their lawsuits will make it onto Slashdot, and Hemos is getting kickbacks from Blizzard's legal team.
Supporting evidence: The stock of VA Linux, Slashdot's parent company, has tanked severely, leaving Hemos and CmdrTaco desperate for alternative sources of income.
Theory 2: Slashdot is run by trolls, who are, in turn, secretly controlled by leading figures in the open source community. These open source leaders hope to sow confusion and dismay among their enemies--the commercial software companies. Villifying a popular gamemaker is a stall tactic while Free Software hackers frantically try to make decent Free (as in software) games, games being the driving force behind the computer industry these days (what the hell else do you need a 1.2 GHz processor for?).
Supporting Evidence: Heidi Wall , arguably the most influential of the trolls since Signal 11 (check the number of fake Heidi Wall accounts), is really a pseudonym for Larry Wall. On "her" user info page, Heidi lists her email as heidi@heidiwall.NOcjb.SPAMnet. A quick visit to heidiwall.cjb.net will reveal that it's actually a mirror of www.perl.com. Furthermore, Heidi's
Theory 3: Nobody actually reads the stories they submit or post.
Supporting evidence: A good look at this should be sufficient, but if you want more, consider this very article.Since they were granted the movie mark "Diablo" in July 2000, fool.
Theory 2 is my personal favourite, and also this guy's favourite, but YMMV. For the terminally clueless, this is supposed to be funny.
Seat belt laws make sense for children, but not for adults. (some) Children are not yet mature individuals capable of making their own informed decisions.
For adults, if they want to drive without seatbelts, let them. I don't think insurance companies should have to pay the full amount if they claim for any injuries that occured because they weren't wearing a seat belt, though.
Incidentally, I heard that seat belt laws have actually increased the rate of accidents, since people drive faster because they feel safer. More accidents, but any given accident is less likely to cause serious injury. Whether it's a net positive or negative, I don't know.
First of all, the life on Mars is probably extinct, except perhaps for isolated pockets that wouldn't be likely to be contaminated by a few manned probes.
Second, who the fuck cares about primitive bacteria? It's scientifically interesting, so we probably want to study it, but there's absolutely no good reason just to leave it alone. It's not sentient, it doesn't look cute, and it doesn't play an important role in our ecosystem.
Also, it's unlikely Earth bacteria would be able to out-compete Mars bacteria in their native environment. Our bacteria--particularly the ones that would be carried by humans--are not well-suited to surviving in the Mars environment, whereas Mars bacteria are presumably well-adapted.
Finally, if you haven't noticed, the Martian environment isn't exactly friendly right now. It's hard to imagine how we could make it worse (from a human habitation point of view).
I believe the Constitutional Amendment that repealed Prohibition also explicitly allowed individual states to pass laws restricting or banning the use of liquor. Given that, Utah is within Constitutional bounds to restrict alcohol (as long as they don't violate other parts of the Constitution).
The moral issue is different. Simply because the majority votes for something does not make it right--that's the classic "tyranny of the majority". Imagine 10 men and 1 woman stranded on a desert island. A vote is held, and by an overwhelming 10-to-1 margin, it is decided that the men should be able to freely have sex with the woman. Democratic, but definitely wrong.
Some rights are absolute, and cannot be taken away even by a democracy.
If I, while of sound mind and by my own free will, choose to engage in an activity which is dangerous to myself but not to others, nobody has the right to stop me. If the activity is dangerous to others (i.e., drunk driving), then it's a different matter.
Some people have already mentioned the parrot that can understand English. What they haven't made clear is just how sophisticated that parrot is.
When shown a purple square block and a purple triangular block, and asked "What is the same?", the parrot will reply "color", and when asked "What is different?" the parrot will say "shape". Furthermore, they've gotten the parrot to start teaching another parrot to speak English. On one occasion, the "teacher" parrot even told the "student" to "speak more clearly" when he pronounced the word paper incorrectly.
Does nobody have a sense of humour anymore? This is the second time in the past two days that I've been moderated down for disagreeing with the story in a humorous way.
I even tried to explain things to the crack-impaired moderators this time, just in case they didn't clue in to the fact that I was kidding. Sadly, they just don't care.
WTFC: Who The Fuck Cares?
/. 73 times today. [very bad]
:-)
Really, most people have boring lives. Why would you want to read about someone else's life? Here's my guesses:
1) You're a psycho stalker. [bad]
2) Your life is even more boring. [bad]
3) You're addicted to websurfing and you've already reloaded
if (your.reason == 1 || your.reason == 3)
seekProfessionalHelp();
else
getALife();
This is like distributedOprah or something, and, IMHO, is the best argument for net censorship
Moderators on the Cheap Crack: this is [+1, Funny], not [-1, Troll]
Upon reflection, I realized what demographic this is targeted at: Asian girls whose families have lots of disposable income. There are lots of them at UBC, and the Flower Power iMac is exactly the kind of thing they go for (along with arcade games like Dance Dance Revolution, and those photo sticker booths)... That iMac was released at Macworld Japan, so it all sort of makes sense.
I know computers aren't just for guys, but you should realize that I would think a computer with Transformers written on the side would be equally silly and tacky.
Aesthetically pleasing computers are one thing, but these are the hi-tech equivalent of shag carpet.
Unless you either have a hacked player that does software decryption, or some other DeCSS-like program, you can't copy and play CSS-protected DVDs.
I'm guessing you're either decrypting them without realizing it (how are you copying the data to your hard drive?), you have a player that's been hacked to read data from anywhere, or you just have unencrypted DVDs.
While you can copy a DVD without DeCSS, it will be of no use to you. You can't bit-for-bit copy a CSS-protected DVD with a consumer DVD-RAM drive. There's some area on the DVD-RAM disc that's not writable by a DVD-RAM drive, and that is required for a CSS-protected DVD. To actually do a bit-for-bit copy, you need a professional DVD writer, which is not something that's widely available.
;-) format or other formats that are easily distributable across the net.
DeCSS does have legitimate uses, but it can be (and is) used to "rip" DVDs and convert them to DivX
In other words, DeCSS is a device/algorithm that allows for the comprimise of access control mechanisms in such a manner as to allow illegal copying of DVDs. Furthermore, this form of copyright infringement holds the potential to decrease the commercial value of works protected by CSS. As broadband access becomes commonplace, piracy of movies could start to happen in a "Napster-like" fashion. This would interfere with the ability of movie studios to sell their content on demand over the internet.
The MPAA isn't as stupid as we like to think. They know that they have to stop this now to avoid future trouble. They're already experimenting with selling content online. They've learned from the mistakes of the RIAA.
There are legitimate uses for DeCSS (such as making a Linux DVD player), and that's why it should be legal. We shouldn't lie and claim it can't be used for piracy.
As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane. He deserves your sympathy and pity, not criticism.
As for the patent, hell, even Apple has published prior art (i.e., more than a year before the date of filing of the patent), and they're aware of it. If you look at the patent, you'll see a list of references that include volumes of Inside Macintosh from 1988. To a large extent, I think this patent is a defensive patent. Perhaps there is some legal patent mumbo-jumbo we're not aware of, too.
The only original innovation here seems to be the idea of having widgets behave in an entirely different way in different themes. Not a big step, or one that (IMHO) should be patentable, but the blame for allowing such a patent (and thus forcing companies to apply for them to avoid losing control over their own innovations) lies on the USPTO.
Gee, you think your entire bloody continent can match one country in GDP? Wow, that's impressive.
Games not taking advantage of broadband? Read the fucking story--the complaint is that many games now require it.
You're obviously a troll, so you deserve only this response:
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!!