Life of comfort, hmm? According to a brief web search, social security payouts to a single individual are ~$640 to $1500, based on their average lifetime salary. That's about one half to one quarter of their monthly salary before retirement, so it seems to hardly be a life of comfort.
Oh, and I'll see your cheap generalization and raise you: Your belief that the rights of an individual supercede the good of the people leads not to freedom, but to feudalism. Arguing in generalities is so fun!
That's not a problem with DRM, that's a problem with artists signing over their copyright on the (books/music/pretty much anything else) to the people who publish their work. Since every major publisher requires that they get the copyright for work they publish, artists don't have much of a choice.
Also, even if the dead artist didn't sign over their copyright, it would still not be free. The copyright would belong to their estate, which is where it should be for the duration of the copyright.....although it should be for a much shorter time than the life + 70 years it is now.
I know what you mean. When the badge system came out I ran around the city grabbing those damn plaques. Unfortunately, I work on a university campus, and there's a plaque at the entrance. Try explaining to the people you just ate lunch with why you fondled the long dead prize winning mathematics professor.
"Small group of people" isn't very well defined. If politicians allow wealthy industry to dictate legislation without regard for public good the small group of people isn't politicians, but rather the heads of corporations, and the politicians are just puppets with no real power.
This hasn't quite happened yet, but it is one of the many paths our government can take. Another would be for the politicians and corporate (and even military) leaders to be essentially the same people, hopping from one job to the next as their desires dictate. Or maybe politicians will make a stand and restrict the power of corporations, and the future will be happier and shinier than ever.
The problem is that corporations are so powerful now with respect to even powerful first world governments. The struggle for power will begin soon, if it hasn't already. We live in interesting times.
Citing Michael Crichton's use of scientific evidence is like citing Jerry Falwell's use of biblical passages: the may have read the text, but their interpretations usually range from superficial and asinine to stupid and wrong.
Don't forget that there exist recessive genes that, when only one gene is present, represent a significant advantage to the individual, but when both are present the individual is disadvantaged.* A recessive gene (or multiple recessive genes) therefore can offer one hypothesis for how homosexuality can be present at in about the same percentage of the population even if homosexuals are less likely to reproduce.** Regardless, I'm surprised more people aren't people here saying they believe homosexuality is(n't) a choice, as it's such a prevalent social issue.
* The genes for sickle cell anemia, for example. Also (dis)advantages refer to a repoductive standpoint only, no judgement is intended. A wild, stab in the dark example hypothesis based on cultural stereotypes would be that having one "homosexual gene" generally gives one greater empathy with the opposite sex and increases the likelihood of reproduction. Or maybe people with one gene like kids a lot and therefore have more, or perhaps increased fertility, or perhaps something completely (seemingly) unrelated.
** A likely hypothesis, but ultimately a matter of empirical evidence, of which I have none.
The movie theatres don't have much choice. Remember that you may pay them upwards of $8-9 dollars now for admission, they get a pittance, with the vast majority going to the studios. Those minimum wage cashiers don't always pay for their shifts in sales. Remember also that the studios don't compete with each other, but the theatre chains do.
This means the studios have the upper hand: should one theatre (or chain) decide it wants to price movies lower, the MPAA just doesn't sign contracts with that theatre, gives sweet, temporary deals to its competitor(s), and guess who's out of business? This is probably illegal, but who (in a position of power) gives a crap?
Anecdote: The theatre near me when I was in high school was the only multiplex around, and movie prices where $7.25. Another multiplex goes in 5 minutes away, and...prices go down, as the increased competition would seem to predict? Nope. Prices at both theatres are $8.75 a year later.
I metamodded a comment in this thread and came across this post.
The judge in that case did not rule that downloading the songs was illegal, but that providing them for download was. Which it is, by the letter of the law. Copyright prohibits you from distributing copies of the work, even if you know the recipient already has it.
Applied to this case, Judge Rakoff's ruling means nothing to the downloading aspect (and therefore the grandparent's comment), but could certainly be cited to shut down the providers.
You're right, human lives cannot be summed to show that one tragedy is greater than another. To classify 9/11 as a "greater" or "lesser" tragedy based solely on the death toll is both ignorant and disrespectful of the victims of that tragedy.
However, without regard to death tolls, I think it is important to realize that a tragedy at home inspired months (years?) of news coverage, speculation, op ed pieces, commemerative works, etc, while a tragedy that would be on the same scale if such a scale could exist received comparitively little.
So, I guess what I mean is that it's prefectly okay, indeed right, to mourn the events of 9/11. But it's also okay to critisize the news media in our country for disproportionally covering events that affect Americans, playing on our fear and sorrow for ratings.
If this doesn't make sense, it's cause I'm drunk. But hey, at least I'm not using my mod points while drunk.
Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives
Problem: In order for a law to be effective in a free society the law must have legitimacy; that is, the citizens must believe the law benefits society. Copyright law has lost much of its legitimacy and, not surprisingly, is not being obeyed by the public. This is not a new development caused by the ease of committing copyright infringment with digital media and the internet, but rather a problem that is coming to a head because of those things.
Solution: The solution is to restore legitimacy to copyright law. To do that the law must be balanced once again between the desires of creators and the benefit to society. Initially, copyright law provided for 14 years of exclusive distribution rights in a time when creation, publication, and distribution where, in general*, more difficult. Therefore, a copyright term of less than 14 years can arguably allow creators to seek compensation** while demostrating to the citizens that corporations are no longer in control. If the citizens are convinced that this law is in their best interests in the long term copyright infringement will no longer be rampant.
*Books and music(written and recorded) are easier to create and visual media is not, but that difference in creation cost is made up by pricing.
**They might not get it! The goal of a reformed copyright law should be to give them time to seek, not to guarantee, income.
I find it hard to accept there's any civil disobedience here
You are correct, but for the wrong reason. Civil disobedience is publicly breaking a law you feel is unjust in such a way as to invite the consequences of your actions upon you.
and the hatred spewed by the same idiots who like P2P against those who make the efforts to formulate alternatives
I'm sure many people who like P2P also like Stallman. Firstly, just because someone's personal hygiene or oratory style are mocked doesn't mean their ideas aren't respected (how many times have you heard someone make fun of Einstein's hairdo?) and secondly, Slashdot isn't a person, so unless you've correlated posts by the same members demonizing stallman and advocating P2P this assertion is without merit.
If I send you a BS bill for $50 and you pay it, it's your fault, not mine.
If you send me that bill with a note threatening to sue me for 100 times that amount if I don't pay, IANAL, but that sounds like extortion to me.
So, if I patent something stupid (a method for preparing sandwhiches without crust), then offer you a choice between a $100,000 fine and a $100 "license" that just seems like a loopful for legal extortion.
Their engineers have this unique way of looking at problems and their solutions to those problems always leave me in awe.
...because their assisted living walker wouldn't fit through a single door I've ever walked through?
I do suppose busting through the door to your office (and talking a nice chunk of the wall with it) would be a good way for the handicapped to scare the living crap out of their co-workers, but that'd be about it. Come to think of it, that does leave me in awe. I want one.
Because, in order for people to react as you predict, some people will have to be convicted of these unjust laws. To use your example, some people will spend time in jail for lending a book to someone.
Don't get so caught up in the affairs of the nation you no longer care about the individual citizens. The injustice done to those people, the years of their life they spend in prison, are reason enough to be worried.
Friends of mine love the mouse gestures extension, but I didn't like Black and White much...
That's probably because mouse gestures in Black and White were things like "draw a spiral" or "draw a cursive w in an obscure font" or "draw the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel."
Don't forget the arguably two biggest victories for federal rights (and losses for states rights): civil rights legislation and roe v. wade. I'm all for states rights and local control in theory, but how can I support it in practice while still agreeing with the federal governments actions in those cases?
Never mind that Superman was foreigner who crashed into the midwest quite by chance to begin with. Hell, that makes him an illegal immigrant (he's taking our jobs!)
That's the same way I feel. Let them post their info on websites and paper, so I can know what they're thinking.
It's hard to express how strongly I feel this is correct. People who recruit for racist and other hate groups rely on young, ignorant people not ever having been exposed to their point of view, and therefore not knowing arguments against it. If our children were brought up with the chance to see and hear radical hate speech, and more importantly the objectitions and arguments against it, they would be much better equipped to deal with the scumbag recruiter or racist peer-group approaching them in their teens.
Not that adults couldn't benefit from this as well. One of the best moments from Politically Incorrect (which used to be one of my favorite shows) was when David Duke (former head of the KKK) was on, talking about the supposed supremacy of European culture, values, knowledge, etc, and some unknown day time tv star ended up arguing him extremely effectively. Think of what a big blow it would be to racist organizations if their chief spokesman regularly lost a debate to a friggin soap star.
The more we know about their arguments, the better equipped we are to defeat them.
Slashdot Mirror
...and then there are some who believe this has already happened....
Life of comfort, hmm? According to a brief web search, social security payouts to a single individual are ~$640 to $1500, based on their average lifetime salary. That's about one half to one quarter of their monthly salary before retirement, so it seems to hardly be a life of comfort.
Oh, and I'll see your cheap generalization and raise you: Your belief that the rights of an individual supercede the good of the people leads not to freedom, but to feudalism. Arguing in generalities is so fun!
Because it's not funny?
That's not a problem with DRM, that's a problem with artists signing over their copyright on the (books/music/pretty much anything else) to the people who publish their work. Since every major publisher requires that they get the copyright for work they publish, artists don't have much of a choice.
Also, even if the dead artist didn't sign over their copyright, it would still not be free. The copyright would belong to their estate, which is where it should be for the duration of the copyright.....although it should be for a much shorter time than the life + 70 years it is now.
In short, this has nothing to do with DRM.
I know what you mean. When the badge system came out I ran around the city grabbing those damn plaques. Unfortunately, I work on a university campus, and there's a plaque at the entrance. Try explaining to the people you just ate lunch with why you fondled the long dead prize winning mathematics professor.
"Small group of people" isn't very well defined. If politicians allow wealthy industry to dictate legislation without regard for public good the small group of people isn't politicians, but rather the heads of corporations, and the politicians are just puppets with no real power.
This hasn't quite happened yet, but it is one of the many paths our government can take. Another would be for the politicians and corporate (and even military) leaders to be essentially the same people, hopping from one job to the next as their desires dictate. Or maybe politicians will make a stand and restrict the power of corporations, and the future will be happier and shinier than ever.
The problem is that corporations are so powerful now with respect to even powerful first world governments. The struggle for power will begin soon, if it hasn't already. We live in interesting times.
Citing Michael Crichton's use of scientific evidence is like citing Jerry Falwell's use of biblical passages: the may have read the text, but their interpretations usually range from superficial and asinine to stupid and wrong.
Don't forget that there exist recessive genes that, when only one gene is present, represent a significant advantage to the individual, but when both are present the individual is disadvantaged.* A recessive gene (or multiple recessive genes) therefore can offer one hypothesis for how homosexuality can be present at in about the same percentage of the population even if homosexuals are less likely to reproduce.** Regardless, I'm surprised more people aren't people here saying they believe homosexuality is(n't) a choice, as it's such a prevalent social issue.
* The genes for sickle cell anemia, for example. Also (dis)advantages refer to a repoductive standpoint only, no judgement is intended. A wild, stab in the dark example hypothesis based on cultural stereotypes would be that having one "homosexual gene" generally gives one greater empathy with the opposite sex and increases the likelihood of reproduction. Or maybe people with one gene like kids a lot and therefore have more, or perhaps increased fertility, or perhaps something completely (seemingly) unrelated.
** A likely hypothesis, but ultimately a matter of empirical evidence, of which I have none.
The movie theatres don't have much choice. Remember that you may pay them upwards of $8-9 dollars now for admission, they get a pittance, with the vast majority going to the studios. Those minimum wage cashiers don't always pay for their shifts in sales. Remember also that the studios don't compete with each other, but the theatre chains do.
This means the studios have the upper hand: should one theatre (or chain) decide it wants to price movies lower, the MPAA just doesn't sign contracts with that theatre, gives sweet, temporary deals to its competitor(s), and guess who's out of business? This is probably illegal, but who (in a position of power) gives a crap?
Anecdote: The theatre near me when I was in high school was the only multiplex around, and movie prices where $7.25. Another multiplex goes in 5 minutes away, and...prices go down, as the increased competition would seem to predict? Nope. Prices at both theatres are $8.75 a year later.
I metamodded a comment in this thread and came across this post.
The judge in that case did not rule that downloading the songs was illegal, but that providing them for download was. Which it is, by the letter of the law. Copyright prohibits you from distributing copies of the work, even if you know the recipient already has it.
Applied to this case, Judge Rakoff's ruling means nothing to the downloading aspect (and therefore the grandparent's comment), but could certainly be cited to shut down the providers.
You're right, human lives cannot be summed to show that one tragedy is greater than another. To classify 9/11 as a "greater" or "lesser" tragedy based solely on the death toll is both ignorant and disrespectful of the victims of that tragedy.
However, without regard to death tolls, I think it is important to realize that a tragedy at home inspired months (years?) of news coverage, speculation, op ed pieces, commemerative works, etc, while a tragedy that would be on the same scale if such a scale could exist received comparitively little.
So, I guess what I mean is that it's prefectly okay, indeed right, to mourn the events of 9/11. But it's also okay to critisize the news media in our country for disproportionally covering events that affect Americans, playing on our fear and sorrow for ratings.
If this doesn't make sense, it's cause I'm drunk. But hey, at least I'm not using my mod points while drunk.
Solution: The solution is to restore legitimacy to copyright law. To do that the law must be balanced once again between the desires of creators and the benefit to society. Initially, copyright law provided for 14 years of exclusive distribution rights in a time when creation, publication, and distribution where, in general*, more difficult. Therefore, a copyright term of less than 14 years can arguably allow creators to seek compensation** while demostrating to the citizens that corporations are no longer in control. If the citizens are convinced that this law is in their best interests in the long term copyright infringement will no longer be rampant.
*Books and music(written and recorded) are easier to create and visual media is not, but that difference in creation cost is made up by pricing.
**They might not get it! The goal of a reformed copyright law should be to give them time to seek, not to guarantee, income.
You are correct, but for the wrong reason. Civil disobedience is publicly breaking a law you feel is unjust in such a way as to invite the consequences of your actions upon you. I'm sure many people who like P2P also like Stallman. Firstly, just because someone's personal hygiene or oratory style are mocked doesn't mean their ideas aren't respected (how many times have you heard someone make fun of Einstein's hairdo?) and secondly, Slashdot isn't a person, so unless you've correlated posts by the same members demonizing stallman and advocating P2P this assertion is without merit.
So, if I patent something stupid (a method for preparing sandwhiches without crust), then offer you a choice between a $100,000 fine and a $100 "license" that just seems like a loopful for legal extortion.
You don't need to buy a domain name to do this....you can just create an account at spamgourmet.com.
I do suppose busting through the door to your office (and talking a nice chunk of the wall with it) would be a good way for the handicapped to scare the living crap out of their co-workers, but that'd be about it. Come to think of it, that does leave me in awe. I want one.
Because, in order for people to react as you predict, some people will have to be convicted of these unjust laws. To use your example, some people will spend time in jail for lending a book to someone.
Don't get so caught up in the affairs of the nation you no longer care about the individual citizens. The injustice done to those people, the years of their life they spend in prison, are reason enough to be worried.
"Up-Down" or "Left" are much more practical.
Finally! I've been looking everywhere for a thumbs-fetish site!
Thank you antifoidulus! I no longer feel so alone!
Don't forget the arguably two biggest victories for federal rights (and losses for states rights): civil rights legislation and roe v. wade. I'm all for states rights and local control in theory, but how can I support it in practice while still agreeing with the federal governments actions in those cases?
Err, do you spam or have an 0wned box? I think that's the only way you'd need to worry.
Anyway, the BitTorrent clients I've used have by default used ports 6889-6989, or thereabouts.
Never mind that Superman was foreigner who crashed into the midwest quite by chance to begin with. Hell, that makes him an illegal immigrant (he's taking our jobs!)
Not that adults couldn't benefit from this as well. One of the best moments from Politically Incorrect (which used to be one of my favorite shows) was when David Duke (former head of the KKK) was on, talking about the supposed supremacy of European culture, values, knowledge, etc, and some unknown day time tv star ended up arguing him extremely effectively. Think of what a big blow it would be to racist organizations if their chief spokesman regularly lost a debate to a friggin soap star.
The more we know about their arguments, the better equipped we are to defeat them.