Dragging things to the trash isn't, clearly, necesarily the same as issuing a deletion command.
It all goes back to how the Mac handled having multiple floppy disks mounted simultaneously even if it only had a single actual disk drive. It makes sense, and at any rate, people are used to it; I'm sure the control inversion of airplane sticks and yokes is baffling too, but there's little to be gained by altering it now.
That could of course, happen NOW. Apple doesn't make ANY chips, and has outsourced manufacturing before. The PowerBook 100, for example, was a Sony, and was NOTHING like anything else in the 100 series. Printers were essentially rebranded Canons for ages.
So what I'm saying is simply: would it not be better if, at the VERY least, Apple used x86 CPUs. The motherboards could, if they really wanted, be entirely of their own design and make. Chips would be purchased from suppliers (who are contractually bound not to change things as a routine matter, by the way) just as they are now.
The only significant difference would be a faster, cheaper, more commonly available CPU.
Who said they can't have tight control over the hardware? x86 is faster and cheaper. Even if Apple kept their systems closed, it would STILL be an improvement to migrate platforms, and replace POS sub-GHz G4s with multi-GHz P4s.
Broad compatability with third party hardware; Mac clones; x86 architecture... these are three entirely distinct things. I'd like to have all three, but the last would be a good start.
Actually it's one of the greatest triumphs of usability on the Mac. It wasn't DESIGNED to do that originally. But it _works_ really well. The 'proper' method of ejecting disks is to dismount them from the menu. Everyone's preferred the shortcut method of dragging them to the trash since before the Mac was even finished.
Read up on your history, and you'll see why this is good.
No, neither the pro nor anti-metadata factions are primarily about resource forks. They're irrelvant to metadata, as you point out. (Well, not really, as it happens, they offer a potential storage location for some types of metadata)
The pro and anti fork factions operate on a completely different axis. Personally, I very much like forked files, and the only improvement I can see is the adoption of an NTFS like filesystem where even more options present themselves in that respect.
Forks and streams are conceptually almost identical to tar, except that you can easily muss about with all of the bound files. There's plenty of practical reasons for doing it, and intercompatability concerns are becoming a thing of the past, with support for it on HFS, HFS+, FAT12, FAT32 and NTFS.
He doesn't mean the skin. That's mildly important, you don't want to fuck it up, that's true.
He's talking about the behavior that the computer exhibits when you try to do stuff. That's what UI is fundementally all about. That's why it has to be started on at the beginning of any project, and has to have a significant, controlling voice.
Using a sans serif font vs. a serif font is a minor, albiet visible, issue with the skin. That's a small UI problem. Having characters you can't type into the filename for any reason, including the number of characters or the specific glyphs, that's a big UI problem and has nothing to do with what it looks like visually.
Actually, since System 7, people have often used the Apple Menu for application launching. God knows I have.
Besides, why should people have to start apps from anywhere other than where they want to?
Indeed, applications themselves are not even givens.
Re:Interesting... but will they do what I want?
on
Comparing the DVRs?
·
· Score: 1
Certainly I remain open to the option of using a real computer to do it rather than a traditional set top box. (provided that it can be muffled)
I'm curious, however, about:
1) the remote control capabilities
2) a potential capability of MS to remotely shut down WinXP when its convenient for them to do so which would ruin this as being useful on both a network and without additional costs beyond the up front cost
3) the user interface -- Windows isn't very good, particularly on NTSC displays, at a distance, with a remote control, and where only a few commands are likely to ever be used.
4) is it more plug and play, e.g. with regards to adding or removing additional hd's than win2k, which took a bit of work?
Naw -- Pure gold would break my shelving, cures cancer would be okay but I don't really need it at the moment, and I'm attractive enough.
Really the above list ISN'T a troll. It's really the features I'd want. Most of them are easily doable right now, frankly. I don't see how they're outrageous.
I'm sorry, I had thought you implied that by having each frame be an iframe that there was a quality increase. It's been some time since I did any DV work at all, but I seem to recall that quality (and size) do increase as you have more iframes.
Certainly, if it was really so far behind the times, why would professionals use it? I'm not saying it'll be standard tomorrow, but that our need for compression lessens as our available bandwidth and storage capacity grow.
Interesting... but will they do what I want?
on
Comparing the DVRs?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Features I'm looking for in a DVR...
HARDWARE
*Integrates nicely with my existing rats' nest of cabling. It can't eat up precious i/o jacks, particularly if it's going to presume to add Macrovision to the output. RCA/Coax/Optical Sound/S-Video, etc.
*In fact, let's dump Macrovision altogether. (I suspect it might slip through 17 USC 1201(k) being a digital device)
*CDRW for archival purposes (fully legal, falls within the Sony case) eventually upgradable to some manner of DVDRW
*2-4 HD bays, with instructions printed on the interior regarding installation, and a backup CD if the DVR software is ever lost. (but frankly, it ought to be able to automatically format unrecognized disks and install the sw itself, sans disk)
*PCI slots so that additional cards, including TV tuners, MPEG2 encoders, etc. can be added
*10bT ethernet to utilize broadband connections if available, and permit control from computers on the LAN.
*Good programmable learning remote, plus well-documented, modifiable codes on the unit for integration w/ existing setups, etc. Needs analog volume knob, definately. Backlit buttons and labels.
*User servicable (except for shielded power supply)
SOFTWARE
*Good UI -- I understand TiVo's decent, but it doesn't strike me as excellent the couple of times I've played with it.
*Storage of previous versions of sw on system so that a) features can't be changed unilaterally by the developer w/o permission of user, b) user can always go back to something he liked better
*No tracking of demographic information whatsoever, in any way, not even an opt-in
*Saves data in easily read format, easily shifted to other storage media.
*Responds to remote commands, e.g. for programming it at work
*Autodetect ads and edit them out/skip them
*30 second skip just in case autodetect doesn't work (including setting marks to assist the autodetect if a show will be viewed repeatedly)
*Good FF/RW just in case you need to resort to that instead. Did I mention that I absolutely won't tolerate ads?
*For God's sake no ads on the UI. That genius deserves a cruel death.
*VCD support, DVD support, eventually DVDRW support -- primarily for offline archive disks, but also legit purchased VCDs and DVDs.
*Sets its own damn clock, has comprehensive rules for daylight savings, leap days, etc.
MISC
*No monthly fees
*Can obtain data (possibly with some additional third-party software) from any source, e.g. TVGuide Online, Digital Cable, etc.
*1 yr warranty
---
That's most of what I can think of, offhand... of course, I don't exactly watch a hell of a lot of TV, and still use a pair of rabbit ears for reception, but it'd be nice to have an archive of ad-free Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, Nova, Law & Order, etc. that I could watch in decently high quality on the TV.
As always, cutting out every last damn second of advertising is of paramount priority; not having to pay beyond the up front cost, and not having demographic information collected is up there too.
Well, eventually we probably will. It wasn't so long ago that music distributed online was pretty much limited to short, low-quality AUs, MODs and MIDI files.
I like a good MOD, but MP3's taken over. Eventually MJPEG probably will too, provided that the MPAA doesn't go insane over it. (well, more so)
Bzzt. There's no law that prevents you from importing software that is otherwise legal. You're not violating copyright by, for example, going to the UK, buying a book only printed in the UK, and bringing it back.
Hell, even if they are subject to licenses, which is certainly fairly doubtful, the validity of the licenses themselves are in doubt, as well as their applicability to a situation such as importing.
For example, it can be used to determine whether or not songs are similar, and therefore be used to find songs similar to what you listen to a lot and would likely enjoy. Or to create good mixes on the fly.
It can be used for 'radio tivo' applications, editing ads out of broadcast radio. (because it knows what bit of the pre-recorded radio was ad, and what wasn't.) And of course, it's handy for automatic station changing.
Naturally, it's useful to be able to ID a song that's playing where you wouldn't otherwise know what it is. And a great tool for ID'ing mp3s and looking them up on a CDDB type database to fill the ID3 tags. (if for example, you hadn't done so when you ripped it)
I was working on some mp3 projects for a while -- we were definately hoping to make use of this kind of stuff.
It's a little difficult for me to imagine Salon, a publicly traded company, as an alternative to mainstream media. (even if their stock is in the crapper)
Regardless, I'm sure that even what you call mainstream media would make the same argument: that I have a moral obligation to look at their ads.
I still stand in my original position: I don't have to look at anything I don't want to. Hell, it's not just me saying this. In the very same decision that solidified the legality of VCRs, the Supreme Court had no problems whatsoever with viewers editing out commercials during recordings, or skipping them during viewing. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 US 417, 423 (1984).
Like broadcast TV, the advertisers are the ones who bear the burden of paying for it. After they do, the content is provided for free to me.
And that guy who's cleaning my window isn't doing so because I asked him to. That's why I don't pay them when they give me something for free that I never asked for. Of course, if you want to send me your mailing address, I could send you a very valuable blank sheet of paper, and bill you $100 for it which you'll owe, according to your sensibilities, merely because you receive it, unsolicited. (the USPS of course, takes my stance: unsolicited products in the mail are gifts)
Broadcast TV is free. They ask me to watch ads. Nevertheless, the TV is provided as a gratuity; I am under no obligation to watch ads, and I don't.
It's like walking around in the city: there are beggars, they want you to give them money, they go through the effort of waiting there for it, and advertising it... but they can't demand handouts.
Frankly, I like them a lot better than I like advertisers.
Re:Cyber-Terrorist Training Tool?
on
Uplink
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You're absolutely right of course. My years of playing Dungeons and Dragons, and GURPS have honed me into a killing machine. In fact, I once had a character with an ST of 40, so I bet I could pick up a car in real life!
Ideally, it would be great if the legislatures could pass broad laws and the courts could refine them. In practice it doesn't work all that well. Don't get me wrong: I love having a common law system, and I'm happy about the courts' role as interpretors.
Nevertheless, if Congress has some specific intent in mind, they need to include that in their law, or at least make the legislative intent known in the Congressional Record. For example, the courts have found that mp3.com's music locker service was illegal because even if users can make their own mp3s, that doesn't allow other people to make the mp3s for them.
If some Congressmen see this ruling, and say, that's not the idea at all, it's up to them to clarify their position for the benefit of the courts. Sort of a GIGO principle.
Additionally, the courts are capable of arriving at inconsistant rulings, they're not really composed of technical experts (can you imagine hammering out zoning regulations and building codes solely in court?) and they are capable of, and often do, arrive at conclusions that aren't considered acceptable. (e.g. the common law prohibits survial tort claims)
Both sides can be plenty boneheaded, and there's a real danger in over-legislating and constraining the courts. But in something like copyright, there are relatively few judicial exceptions carved out. Typically this lies with Congress.
Believe me, people are very capable of acting like computer programs, and looking at the letter of a law, and not the spirit. When you've got something at stake, you just adopt the best argument you can, really. If one happens to be the correct one, it helps to know. Judges can't read the minds of Congress.
Because 1) this isn't fair use. Fair use is well-defined, both in its original judicial form, and its more recent legislative embodiment, and doesn't cover this. And 2) because they are being efficient; something like fair use applies all across the board. Here they only want to carve out an exception for a particular class of works. Archival copies of books, for example, wouldn't be protected here.
Law is really not all that complicated -- it's just that there's TONS of it. There need to be.
Heck, I'm a law student, so let me ask you a question as a programmer: why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want? Or are we stuck with it just having to be larger than that in order to get what we want out of it?
It's not my problem how or if Salon makes money. What is my problem is that I can't abide advertisements. I've got reasonably heavy filtering set up to block them out, because I don't have to look at 'em, I don't have to respond to 'em, I don't have to waste my bandwidth, memory or CPU cycles on 'em, and I sure as hell don't have to put up with 'em.
If they go out of business, then they go out of business. Maybe they shouldn't've relied so heavily on such a lousy way of making money.
I don't have to subsidize stupid business plans with annoying implementations. Who says I do?
I imagine they do it like everyone else does it -- they pull down a copy of a book like the USCA, or call up the same material online, and compare the two.
Visualizing the complete law is not the hard part; determining the outcome is.
I don't think that deciding that musicians' exclusive rights over copyrighted material don't apply to noncommercial P2P filesharing is a big moral issue. True, just because something is a law doesn't mean it has moral authority.
But copyrights in the US have never had moral authority. The entire purpose of them, as the Constitution demonstrates, is to promote the progress of the arts. What's 'right' doesn't enter into such a utilitarian scheme. Moreover, there's perfectly good arguments in all directions, morally, even that copyrights shouldn't exist at all. Copyrights are not an inherent human right, you know.
That's like arguing that although Congress has the power to declare war, they don't have the power to stop, and declare peace.
I don't think that even the strictest constructionist goes that far. Congress' power to repeal its own laws by passing another, superceeding and nullifying law, is not usually questioned.
Besides, you're wrong about the greater good, anyway; even if Congress couldn't extend copyright, works that didn't have their term extended, but which instead received their copyright after the extension will still get it. And according to you, everything afterwards will have it. Everything in the future being so inaccessable strikes me as a bit worse than a relatively small amount of stuff in the past being accessible.
Well, clearly, you failed your civics class in school, but let's recap:
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so! Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria. (e.g. the copyright had to be applied for and approved, had to be held by an American, etc. IIRC) Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law? If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal law, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights. Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them. Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered. It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.
Slashdot Mirror
Dragging things to the trash isn't, clearly, necesarily the same as issuing a deletion command.
It all goes back to how the Mac handled having multiple floppy disks mounted simultaneously even if it only had a single actual disk drive. It makes sense, and at any rate, people are used to it; I'm sure the control inversion of airplane sticks and yokes is baffling too, but there's little to be gained by altering it now.
That could of course, happen NOW. Apple doesn't make ANY chips, and has outsourced manufacturing before. The PowerBook 100, for example, was a Sony, and was NOTHING like anything else in the 100 series. Printers were essentially rebranded Canons for ages.
So what I'm saying is simply: would it not be better if, at the VERY least, Apple used x86 CPUs. The motherboards could, if they really wanted, be entirely of their own design and make. Chips would be purchased from suppliers (who are contractually bound not to change things as a routine matter, by the way) just as they are now.
The only significant difference would be a faster, cheaper, more commonly available CPU.
Don't even pretend that that's bad.
Who said they can't have tight control over the hardware? x86 is faster and cheaper. Even if Apple kept their systems closed, it would STILL be an improvement to migrate platforms, and replace POS sub-GHz G4s with multi-GHz P4s.
Broad compatability with third party hardware; Mac clones; x86 architecture... these are three entirely distinct things. I'd like to have all three, but the last would be a good start.
Actually it's one of the greatest triumphs of usability on the Mac. It wasn't DESIGNED to do that originally. But it _works_ really well. The 'proper' method of ejecting disks is to dismount them from the menu. Everyone's preferred the shortcut method of dragging them to the trash since before the Mac was even finished.
Read up on your history, and you'll see why this is good.
No, neither the pro nor anti-metadata factions are primarily about resource forks. They're irrelvant to metadata, as you point out. (Well, not really, as it happens, they offer a potential storage location for some types of metadata)
The pro and anti fork factions operate on a completely different axis. Personally, I very much like forked files, and the only improvement I can see is the adoption of an NTFS like filesystem where even more options present themselves in that respect.
Forks and streams are conceptually almost identical to tar, except that you can easily muss about with all of the bound files. There's plenty of practical reasons for doing it, and intercompatability concerns are becoming a thing of the past, with support for it on HFS, HFS+, FAT12, FAT32 and NTFS.
He doesn't mean the skin. That's mildly important, you don't want to fuck it up, that's true.
He's talking about the behavior that the computer exhibits when you try to do stuff. That's what UI is fundementally all about. That's why it has to be started on at the beginning of any project, and has to have a significant, controlling voice.
Using a sans serif font vs. a serif font is a minor, albiet visible, issue with the skin. That's a small UI problem. Having characters you can't type into the filename for any reason, including the number of characters or the specific glyphs, that's a big UI problem and has nothing to do with what it looks like visually.
Actually, since System 7, people have often used the Apple Menu for application launching. God knows I have.
Besides, why should people have to start apps from anywhere other than where they want to?
Indeed, applications themselves are not even givens.
Certainly I remain open to the option of using a real computer to do it rather than a traditional set top box. (provided that it can be muffled)
I'm curious, however, about:
1) the remote control capabilities
2) a potential capability of MS to remotely shut down WinXP when its convenient for them to do so which would ruin this as being useful on both a network and without additional costs beyond the up front cost
3) the user interface -- Windows isn't very good, particularly on NTSC displays, at a distance, with a remote control, and where only a few commands are likely to ever be used.
4) is it more plug and play, e.g. with regards to adding or removing additional hd's than win2k, which took a bit of work?
Naw -- Pure gold would break my shelving, cures cancer would be okay but I don't really need it at the moment, and I'm attractive enough.
Really the above list ISN'T a troll. It's really the features I'd want. Most of them are easily doable right now, frankly. I don't see how they're outrageous.
I'm sorry, I had thought you implied that by having each frame be an iframe that there was a quality increase. It's been some time since I did any DV work at all, but I seem to recall that quality (and size) do increase as you have more iframes.
Certainly, if it was really so far behind the times, why would professionals use it? I'm not saying it'll be standard tomorrow, but that our need for compression lessens as our available bandwidth and storage capacity grow.
Features I'm looking for in a DVR...
HARDWARE
*Integrates nicely with my existing rats' nest of cabling. It can't eat up precious i/o jacks, particularly if it's going to presume to add Macrovision to the output. RCA/Coax/Optical Sound/S-Video, etc.
*In fact, let's dump Macrovision altogether. (I suspect it might slip through 17 USC 1201(k) being a digital device)
*CDRW for archival purposes (fully legal, falls within the Sony case) eventually upgradable to some manner of DVDRW
*2-4 HD bays, with instructions printed on the interior regarding installation, and a backup CD if the DVR software is ever lost. (but frankly, it ought to be able to automatically format unrecognized disks and install the sw itself, sans disk)
*PCI slots so that additional cards, including TV tuners, MPEG2 encoders, etc. can be added
*10bT ethernet to utilize broadband connections if available, and permit control from computers on the LAN.
*Good programmable learning remote, plus well-documented, modifiable codes on the unit for integration w/ existing setups, etc. Needs analog volume knob, definately. Backlit buttons and labels.
*User servicable (except for shielded power supply)
SOFTWARE
*Good UI -- I understand TiVo's decent, but it doesn't strike me as excellent the couple of times I've played with it.
*Storage of previous versions of sw on system so that a) features can't be changed unilaterally by the developer w/o permission of user, b) user can always go back to something he liked better
*No tracking of demographic information whatsoever, in any way, not even an opt-in
*Saves data in easily read format, easily shifted to other storage media.
*Responds to remote commands, e.g. for programming it at work
*Autodetect ads and edit them out/skip them
*30 second skip just in case autodetect doesn't work (including setting marks to assist the autodetect if a show will be viewed repeatedly)
*Good FF/RW just in case you need to resort to that instead. Did I mention that I absolutely won't tolerate ads?
*For God's sake no ads on the UI. That genius deserves a cruel death.
*VCD support, DVD support, eventually DVDRW support -- primarily for offline archive disks, but also legit purchased VCDs and DVDs.
*Sets its own damn clock, has comprehensive rules for daylight savings, leap days, etc.
MISC
*No monthly fees
*Can obtain data (possibly with some additional third-party software) from any source, e.g. TVGuide Online, Digital Cable, etc.
*1 yr warranty
---
That's most of what I can think of, offhand... of course, I don't exactly watch a hell of a lot of TV, and still use a pair of rabbit ears for reception, but it'd be nice to have an archive of ad-free Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, Nova, Law & Order, etc. that I could watch in decently high quality on the TV.
As always, cutting out every last damn second of advertising is of paramount priority; not having to pay beyond the up front cost, and not having demographic information collected is up there too.
Well, eventually we probably will. It wasn't so long ago that music distributed online was pretty much limited to short, low-quality AUs, MODs and MIDI files.
I like a good MOD, but MP3's taken over. Eventually MJPEG probably will too, provided that the MPAA doesn't go insane over it. (well, more so)
Bzzt. There's no law that prevents you from importing software that is otherwise legal. You're not violating copyright by, for example, going to the UK, buying a book only printed in the UK, and bringing it back.
Hell, even if they are subject to licenses, which is certainly fairly doubtful, the validity of the licenses themselves are in doubt, as well as their applicability to a situation such as importing.
It's really useful.
For example, it can be used to determine whether or not songs are similar, and therefore be used to find songs similar to what you listen to a lot and would likely enjoy. Or to create good mixes on the fly.
It can be used for 'radio tivo' applications, editing ads out of broadcast radio. (because it knows what bit of the pre-recorded radio was ad, and what wasn't.) And of course, it's handy for automatic station changing.
Naturally, it's useful to be able to ID a song that's playing where you wouldn't otherwise know what it is. And a great tool for ID'ing mp3s and looking them up on a CDDB type database to fill the ID3 tags. (if for example, you hadn't done so when you ripped it)
I was working on some mp3 projects for a while -- we were definately hoping to make use of this kind of stuff.
It's a little difficult for me to imagine Salon, a publicly traded company, as an alternative to mainstream media. (even if their stock is in the crapper)
Regardless, I'm sure that even what you call mainstream media would make the same argument: that I have a moral obligation to look at their ads.
I still stand in my original position: I don't have to look at anything I don't want to. Hell, it's not just me saying this. In the very same decision that solidified the legality of VCRs, the Supreme Court had no problems whatsoever with viewers editing out commercials during recordings, or skipping them during viewing. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 US 417, 423 (1984).
Like broadcast TV, the advertisers are the ones who bear the burden of paying for it. After they do, the content is provided for free to me.
And that guy who's cleaning my window isn't doing so because I asked him to. That's why I don't pay them when they give me something for free that I never asked for. Of course, if you want to send me your mailing address, I could send you a very valuable blank sheet of paper, and bill you $100 for it which you'll owe, according to your sensibilities, merely because you receive it, unsolicited. (the USPS of course, takes my stance: unsolicited products in the mail are gifts)
Broadcast TV is free. They ask me to watch ads. Nevertheless, the TV is provided as a gratuity; I am under no obligation to watch ads, and I don't.
It's like walking around in the city: there are beggars, they want you to give them money, they go through the effort of waiting there for it, and advertising it... but they can't demand handouts.
Frankly, I like them a lot better than I like advertisers.
You're absolutely right of course. My years of playing Dungeons and Dragons, and GURPS have honed me into a killing machine. In fact, I once had a character with an ST of 40, so I bet I could pick up a car in real life!
Ideally, it would be great if the legislatures could pass broad laws and the courts could refine them. In practice it doesn't work all that well. Don't get me wrong: I love having a common law system, and I'm happy about the courts' role as interpretors.
Nevertheless, if Congress has some specific intent in mind, they need to include that in their law, or at least make the legislative intent known in the Congressional Record. For example, the courts have found that mp3.com's music locker service was illegal because even if users can make their own mp3s, that doesn't allow other people to make the mp3s for them.
If some Congressmen see this ruling, and say, that's not the idea at all, it's up to them to clarify their position for the benefit of the courts. Sort of a GIGO principle.
Additionally, the courts are capable of arriving at inconsistant rulings, they're not really composed of technical experts (can you imagine hammering out zoning regulations and building codes solely in court?) and they are capable of, and often do, arrive at conclusions that aren't considered acceptable. (e.g. the common law prohibits survial tort claims)
Both sides can be plenty boneheaded, and there's a real danger in over-legislating and constraining the courts. But in something like copyright, there are relatively few judicial exceptions carved out. Typically this lies with Congress.
Believe me, people are very capable of acting like computer programs, and looking at the letter of a law, and not the spirit. When you've got something at stake, you just adopt the best argument you can, really. If one happens to be the correct one, it helps to know. Judges can't read the minds of Congress.
Because 1) this isn't fair use. Fair use is well-defined, both in its original judicial form, and its more recent legislative embodiment, and doesn't cover this. And 2) because they are being efficient; something like fair use applies all across the board. Here they only want to carve out an exception for a particular class of works. Archival copies of books, for example, wouldn't be protected here.
Law is really not all that complicated -- it's just that there's TONS of it. There need to be.
Heck, I'm a law student, so let me ask you a question as a programmer: why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want? Or are we stuck with it just having to be larger than that in order to get what we want out of it?
It's not my problem how or if Salon makes money. What is my problem is that I can't abide advertisements. I've got reasonably heavy filtering set up to block them out, because I don't have to look at 'em, I don't have to respond to 'em, I don't have to waste my bandwidth, memory or CPU cycles on 'em, and I sure as hell don't have to put up with 'em.
If they go out of business, then they go out of business. Maybe they shouldn't've relied so heavily on such a lousy way of making money.
I don't have to subsidize stupid business plans with annoying implementations. Who says I do?
I imagine they do it like everyone else does it -- they pull down a copy of a book like the USCA, or call up the same material online, and compare the two.
Visualizing the complete law is not the hard part; determining the outcome is.
I don't think that deciding that musicians' exclusive rights over copyrighted material don't apply to noncommercial P2P filesharing is a big moral issue. True, just because something is a law doesn't mean it has moral authority.
But copyrights in the US have never had moral authority. The entire purpose of them, as the Constitution demonstrates, is to promote the progress of the arts. What's 'right' doesn't enter into such a utilitarian scheme. Moreover, there's perfectly good arguments in all directions, morally, even that copyrights shouldn't exist at all. Copyrights are not an inherent human right, you know.
Yes, yes, but within the context of Congress weakening copyright law, there's not a whole lot of Constitution to run headlong into.
That's like arguing that although Congress has the power to declare war, they don't have the power to stop, and declare peace.
I don't think that even the strictest constructionist goes that far. Congress' power to repeal its own laws by passing another, superceeding and nullifying law, is not usually questioned.
Besides, you're wrong about the greater good, anyway; even if Congress couldn't extend copyright, works that didn't have their term extended, but which instead received their copyright after the extension will still get it. And according to you, everything afterwards will have it. Everything in the future being so inaccessable strikes me as a bit worse than a relatively small amount of stuff in the past being accessible.
Well, clearly, you failed your civics class in school, but let's recap:
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so! Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria. (e.g. the copyright had to be applied for and approved, had to be held by an American, etc. IIRC) Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law? If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal law, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights. Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them. Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered. It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.