"The cartoon was really created by the Russian government"
Actually, the Smurfs are far worse than any Soviet plot: they're French. That's French culture and their version of "liberte, egalite, fratenite" that's being broadcast on our TVs.
If anything, Gargamel and Azrael are Americans, our evil consumerism (looking to devour the poor Frogs^H^H^H^H^HSmurfs) and the domination of our culture. All they can do is run and hide in their tiny Republic controlled by what is little more than a benevolent dictator (which France has a history of, from Napoleon to Chirac). Of course you also have Brainy Smurf (Prime Minister, anybody?) who just thinks he has a say in government.
Magic then becomes analogous to nuclear weapons. Gargamel is a powerful wizard with the ability to destroy countries if given half a chance, and Papa Smurf has to use his own magic from time to time to threaten and defend themselves from him.
Of course Gargamel does have something to fear from a certain giant (here's the Soviet Union), and the Smurfs are always so smart for playing Gargamel and that giant (who's name I don't remember) against each other and secretly coming out on top.
Who else could imagine a single woman (and later an under-aged girl) satisfying the sexual desires of an entire village if not the French? Well, maybe not the entire village... Vainey is obviously gay and probably has something gone on on the side with Hefty and possibly Brainey.
If you're going to denounce the evils of the Smurfs, you should at least make sure to blame the right people.:)
And before you mod me down, we're talking about the evils of the media as well as a broadcast television show that is probably available for download (and suspiciously not included in the list of shows the networks are worried about). Laugh a little!:)
"The only valid concern I can think of from the TV industry is that sponsers may not pay for ads during reruns of a particular show if viewers already have copies of it to watch."
You mean then networks would have to come up with original content more often than two months out of the year? It's the end of the world, I tell you!
"Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing."
Their intent is to serve the networks. They get a profit from the commercials without having to pay the production costs of a new episode. Just a few bucks here to pay for the guy playing the glorified VCR. Personally I think that if advertisers pay the same for reruns as they do for original episodes then they're getting screwed.
"If I tape a show and give it to a friend, yes, that's illegal"
I'm not sure it is. If the government or anybody else with a security camera has the right to record what goes on in public and more or less do what they like with it (distribute it to the Discovery Channel for documentaries, for example), why is it then illegal to record a free public broadcast and treat it similarly?
I could understand doing this with cable and DSS broadcasts, since the encryption and/or physical wire dictate a private medium. But VHF and UHF television broadcasts? Hell, the FCC says I have a right to tune in to any signals that reach me and as long as I don't have to decode it I'm free to observe the content, whether it be military communications, cordless phone conversations, Morse code conversations on HAM radio, or Enterprise on UHF channel 54.
"The MPAA counted more than 5,000 locations on the Internet last year where people could download episodes for free."
... as opposed to watching the broadcast for free?
The networks already got their money, and they didn't get it from the viewers. The advertisers paid for the broadcast and there shouldn't be anything more to ask for (unless they want to take the position of cable companies where they charge both the advertier and the viewer). If the networks don't feel like they're getting enough money then they should be talking to the people that actually pay for it, and if the advertisers won't pay any more than that's your problem, not mine.
The shows are being broadcast whether I like them or not. My TV received those broadcasts but either wasn't on or was focused on a different channel at the time. I also have the right to record such broadcasts whether I watch it at the time of recording or not. While it's true that it's copyrighted matieral, giving the networks the ability to control what they themselves distributed to anybody and everybody free of charge is ridiculous. If this keeps up will the networks attempt to have a say in the affairs of TV and VCR manufacturers to "help the networks defend their rights?"
Consumers don't want to play by the network's rules. In a capitalist society it is the network that must adapt to the situation, not the consumer.
"Everyone bashes MS because of the issues in Windows, now they create a stable platform by controlling the hardware and people still are not happy."
First off, I don't feel that the Xbox has been on the market long enough to call it "stable." Remember that even their UltimateTV required patching.
Secondly, I was under the impression that the anti-trust case against Microsoft was partly over how they DID have an inordinate amount of control over PC hardware, or at least its manufacturers.
"What is the difference between this and Apple?"
For one I don't think Apple has regional lock-outs, nor am I aware of special requirements needed to make USB (or even FireWire) hardware beyond fees for the use of their patents.
Also I don't recall Apple ever having a monopoly, let alone having a history of abusing that monopoly to their own advantage. The US courts have found that Microsoft has systematically and repeatedly abused their monopoly over at least the past decade, so why shouldn't we be wary of anything Microsoft does that hurts consumers, no matter how slight they seem? Especially given the history of these anti-consumer practices snowballing in Microsoft's case...
"Why? Because when those poorly designed peripherals fail who shoulders the blame?"
The manufacturer of the peripheral. If your Canon printer breaks you don't call Dell (unless you bought it from Dell and Dell promised to support it).
And when it comes to consoles, I don't recall Nintendo ever getting blamed for sucky peripherals, even ones with Nintendo's "Seal of Quality" on them. Consider the Power Glove.
"Bottom line, I think these people could mount a fairly strong challenge to at least the lawsuit, and possibly take the route of the DMCA being unconstitutional: It's being used to make a _fair use_ under copyright -- space/time shifting of user data -- illegal."
I agree that the US Supreme Court would probably find the DMCA unconstitutional. The question is whether or not it will ever get there to begin with.
First and foremost a legal defense costs somebody somewhere money. In almost all cases the copyright holder will have more cash and can win by the legal equivalent of attrition.
Secondly, I think Adobe's example of dropping charges against Sklyarov when things got a little too interesting may be a trend. The copyright holders probably know that if the DMCA ever reached the US Supreme Court then the game is over, but why not bankrupt the defendant by dragging him through the appeals process up to and just shy of the Supreme Court and then "settling" with them just before they get there?
We aren't talking about CDs and DVDs and such. A Game Boy Advance cartridge is more or less a proprietary format manufactured exclusively by Ninento for use on Nintendo hardware specifically designed at least to fit the cartridge in the slot. I'm willing to bet that Nintendo will claim that, by figuring out what the different pins on the cartridge do, the manufacturer defeated their "encryption" in violation of the DMCA.
While my own personal tastes in media probably don't apply to the vast majority of the world, I find that I tire quickly of media when all the different stations/channels/websites show exactly the same thing, and to that end I tend to find more alternative media outlets for my media.
The over-hyped, over-commercialized, formulaic crap that Clear Channel and the like own on the radio has given me plenty of incentive to listen to NPR more.
When I watch TV most of the time I end up watching origina content that tends not to be on other channels. Instead of watching the stuff on typical broadcast TV (and all the "touching, emotional, heart-warming and timely" crap that comes with it), I end up watching A&E, Discovery and Cartoon Network when I have cable/satellite, and mostly PBS when I don't.
As for news on the internet, I barely bother with American news outlets any more. I get the generalized stuff from the BBC, CBC, and occasionally ABC (the Australian one), and go to Stratfor for my in-depth stuff. Even the People's Daily has something new and interesting when compared to the recycled AP/Reuters stuff that permeates the US. And at least I KNOW where the bias is there.
Just because Network A has five viewers and Network B has five doesn't mean that buying them both will net you ten.
Microsoft has figured out a way figure out allowable USB devices and those that aren't allowed. If Microsoft brought this feature over to their Windows softwre, things could get interesting. The first thing that comes to mind is that Microsoft now has a big stick to enforce driver signing requirements. If you don't play along (ie. make drivers for non-Windows OSes), Windows will forever identify your hardware as a possible security risk (and possibly take action because of it).
"Playstation made it so you couldn't play japanese playstation games."
And as far as I know this has yet to be tested in court. This is right on up there with region coding on DVDs and may violate trade treaties the same way.
Of course, at least in the US it's still legal to mod your hardware to accept foreign software.
"I don't see the big deal, here. If Japan wants to sell controlers, they'll make them with the appropriate "US" USB"
Without even getting into whether they could or not, should they have to?
I'm a bit of a rabid video game fanatic. When all is said and one I have 10 consoles and hand-held systems lying around the house, as well as quite a few games for each. I also tend to be a big fan of Nintendo and their work (I have every one of their systems, including a Virtual Boy). I'm forcing myself to hold out on getting a GameCube until Metroid Prime came out. Or at least I was.
I can't begin to describe how utterly wrong this is to me. I mean, the Sklyarov bit was one thing, but this... this is a cornerstone of the EMU community! This IS the EMU community! It is also an example of everything that is good and right in the EMU community. Other than the emulators themselves, there is NO copyrighted material at zophar.net, not even PSX BIOS images. Their efforts support coding afficionados (both emulator and public domain game writers) and nostaligic gamers alike, giving them an opportunity to explore their passions that they otherwise wouldn't have. They also fill the gaps that publishers leave by hosting translation patches for ROM images, in more languages than you can shake a stick at. In my opinion this is tantamount to Lockheed-Martin suing the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.
The defense of ZD in their efforts to both support themselves monetarily (more-or-less on a non-profit level) and to support video game fans in execrizing their Fair Use rights with their legally-owned software in my opinion comes before my personal addiction to video games. I want to help ZD in some way, and seeing as how I don't have a law degree all I can do is donate what money I might have spent on video games to the cause of getting ZD a good lawyer. And I think anybody who's ever used ZD at one point or another should consider doing this.
So if Swampgas would be so kind as to set up a PayPal donation button or something of the kind, I'll gladly start by sending him the $200 I would have otherwise spent on a GameCube.
I've read a few of the opinions here about why they're uneasy about blocking off entire domains like this, but I still can't see this as anything but a Good Thing(tm).
There are those who are uneasy about blocking off access to a free and open medium. But if the medium is truly free, then you should also be free to block traffic that you don't want. Seriously, if you carry that point of view to its logical conlusion you shouldn't be trying to avoid spam to begin with and reading it should be compulsory. Just because everybody has a voice doesn't mean you have to listen.
Should ISPs be held accountable for the actions of their users? No. But they should be held accountable for their own actions, and one of their actions is aiding and abetting known spamers. They've received the warnings and complaints, they've seen their own mail server traffic and have access to their own logs, and their decision to do nothing implicates them. If a bartender can be held accountable for letting a known drunk drive home and if a gun store owner can be held accountable for selling a gun to a known felon, why shouldn't ISP's be held accountable for selling service to a known spammer?
And as for the legitimate mails that may get blocked by firewalling off Korea or whatever, why should we be held accountable for the foolish choices made by these customers? If anything, blocking their e-mails should be seen as a benefit, allowing the user to learn first-hand the despicable pro-spam tactics of their ISP and make an informed decision. If they don't jump ship after that they deserve what they get.
They're our routers, our mail servers, as long as our actions don't abuse other peoples' resources (like spammers) why shouldn't we do whatever we damn well please with them?
"What about getting laws that say that unsolicitated mail is illegal? Shouldn't that do the trick? Anybody got some good reason for why laws like this shouldn't come true?"
Spammers and the ISPs that support them have reasons not to do that. And while they may or may not be good reasons, they have money and they have lobbyists, so don't hold your breath for such legislation unless this becomes a big issue this November.
"All it takes for a given gov't to lose power, is for the majority of it's citizens to stop tolerating it."
That depends entirely on how well-armed and loyal the military is. The People's Army is one of those militaries that promotes its officers almost exclusively on the basis of loyalty. While they may suck in the field, they have the tanks and the planes while the civilian populace don't.
"Lets say we had ten kids in a room. One of them is the dictator of the rest and he tells them everything, when to eat, shit, sleep lay down or stand up. And none of them ever argue. If one day all nine of them simply say "No more. We do whatever we want now" What would the leader do?"
He'd have a clue, get a gune and make one of his first rules "Nobody can have a gun but me." Recall that Nazi Germany was the first country to make all firearms completely illegal.
And besides, when you look at the history of revolutions, there seems to be a pattern of being extremely bloody and in most cases devouring themselves. Putting up with a dictator might seem preferable to the alternative.
"Microsoft never gave a reason for this, and it is assumed that MS made this change to restrict other OSes from running along side of Windows."
While I'm not really disagreeing with you (since nobody really knows outside of Microsoft), I always assumed that was done mostly to convince consumers that Me was "Win2k, the home game." There were several other little GUI tweaks (moving networking connections to the Settings section of the Start menu comes ot mind) that seemed to be put in simply to make it look and feel more like Win2k. And since there's no DOS option in Win2k...
On top of that, I also figured that it was just another step in Microsoft's odd little quirk in trying to wish DOS away. They've been trying for at least a decade to push out DOS if for no other reason than DOS competes with Windows in the OS game. By decreasing support for DOS apps, they're forcing app writers to write for Windows instead (forcing users to upgrade to Windows and further limiting support for IBM's PC-DOS 2000 in swing).
And finally Microsoft could always say that MS-DOS 8.0 (it's tricky to find out what version came with Me) simply couldn't do anything but boot into Windows. After all, all previous Windows 9x versions only came with MS-DOS 7.x, so who knows what big change they made in the jump to 8.0.
(Of course, somebody could and maybe have figured out how to eliminate some of these possibilities, but I haven't seen any yet.)
> "You have no right to say unpopular things in > a medium literally owned and maintained by the > populous. They own it, they say what you can > and can't do with it. Simple as that."
"Bullshit. That's complete, utter, bullshit. Point me to the Supreme Court decision that supports THAT load of crap."
"Now, you have no right to say unpopular things in a privately owned medium, but the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium."
I reference you back to the two SCUS decisions I just mentioned.
"Not to mention that your claim is in direct contravention to 200+ years of Supreme Court cases that have, time after time, affirmed a right to free speech."
Once again I refer you back to the two SCUS cases I linked to and the others like it (be careful what you wish for...). You have a right to free speech but you have no right to dictate where you can say it or to use other peoples' property in saying it. And that includes public property.
"The inherent human right to free speech cannot be denied at this point."
Maybe I didn't say it enough times yet: A right to free speech doesn't mean a right to say it anywhere you wish. Unlike your previous assertations, SCUS has time and time again sided against free speech when the speech in question violated the rights of others.
On top of that, just about every state in the union has laws on the books restricting hate speech to some extent. While the laws do not outlaw it, these laws do require such things as including your name and address on such works (ie. anonymous hate speech is illegal). And these laws have stood up in the courts time and time again.
"Finally, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it grants rights to the government,"
Put in the word "federal" and I'll agree with you. The US Constitution only has some general rules and requirements for membership in the US. States have their own constitutions (and must, by way of Article I) and many are written in quite a different style from the federal text. Which is as it should be, seeing as how states and the feds have two different forms of government (if they did, then we'd be talking about "county rights" at the state level).
"and denies any right not explicitly granted."
Again, you forgot the words "to the federal government." Read carefully (emphasis mine):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the poeple.
States are a different body from individuals and have their own rights, completely separate from yours and mine. And despite the damage done to state's rights by such things as the Seventeenth Amendment, state's rights are still very much alive.
"That's right, including me. Which means I have the right to use it as well. If my use of public property damages it, the government has the right to restrict my actions. If it simply offends you, suck it up and deal. You're not the only one who pays taxes here."
Nor are you. Yours are only a drop in the bucket. And because public property is paid for by so many people, the rules for its use need to be acceptable to everybody (or at least the majority).
Going back to the public road analogy, simply because you helped pay for them doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the speed limit, stop signs, etc. as you see fit. These are restrictions placed on the use of public property by the public that paid for it. Speeding and drunk driving aren't just illegal if you hit someone or something (ie. "damage property"), they're illegal outright.
"Bullshit. Public property is my property. The fact that it's your property as well does not deny my ownership."
No, but it does deny you the use of the property as you see fit. Once again, you can't speed on public roads without breaking the law.
"The pro-spam lobby wants the right to use property that belongs entirely to other people."
Oh? Didn't they pay for the use of their ISP's mail servers? In fact, I recall a recent court case where the court ordered the ISP not to drop the spammer...
"your claim that there is no right to free speech on public property is thoroughly contradicted by several centuries of literature, law, and court decisions throughout the western world."
Here's a quick question: What gives the FCC the right to restrict the use of certain words in radio and television broadcasts?
Here's another: How come you can't get copies of Hustler at your local library?
Yet one more: Why don't you see nudity or foul language on billboards?
The answer to all of these questions is that these are restrictions on speech in a public medium. And these are far from the only examples.
"In fact,unless I am very much mistaken, the war of the northern aggression was fought to prevent the departure of certain of the territories. There has been no announced change of policy on that matter since the 1860s."
But it wasn't about JUST secession. The war was also over balance between the state's right to leave the union and Congress requiring a republican form of government in those states (which is kind of hard to do when you have people that have no rights and no say in their government).
In many cases it was also about Lincoln's abuse of power after the initial wave of secessions (a war over the perceived abuses in the others' governments, if you will), but the secession matter still hasn't been dealt with. Several constitutional amendments were more or less forced upon the southern states after the war, but none of them said anything about disallowing secession. And since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment seems to leave the right to secession with the state.
"Since they are not up for election and have lifetime terms, they are free to accept all the bribes they want, support the people who are paying them at the expense of The People, and never fear for their jobs."
But the fact that they don't have to pay for political campaigns removes the main venue that bribers hide their funds transactions in. And they do have to fear for their jobs. Impeachments aren't just for presidents.
"Elected officials have to be cleaner. Sure, they need reelection money, but if they go directly against the will of all their constituents (assuming everyone else agreed on anything) they are gone regardless of how much they have in their warchests."
That only holds true if the public is able to remember next election year that they don't like their public official and why. The longer the term, the more likely the constituants are to forget.
If nothing else, one had to respect the Microsot marketing department for being able to shovel crap onto the consumer by the pound at the consumer's cost. But after choosing a product name like that...
I already made some long posts about most of this stuff earlier, so I'll just toss out a few minor points:
"And as for the chinese people who posted to say "it's not so bad", it would be alot worse if you had any un-popular thoughts."
I agree with you, but I'm a Westerner agreeing with a Westerner. Remember that east Asian cultures tend to value group harmony more than personal privileges. For many Chinese, "not that bad for the majority" may be a benefit that outweighs "a few individuals get persecuted."
Who's right and who's wrong is something I think should be left to the individual, but again I'm a Westerner and tend to think that a lot of things should be left to the individual.
"The government of any country is formed by the people of said country. And all those peoples are responsible for the actions of the government."
In China's case I can't really agree. Though that piece of paper they call a constitution says that all power rests with the people, it's pretty clear that all power rests in Beijing, who then doles out a few privileges here and there. The only times that a people are really responsible for their government are when the government more closely resembles that of the US.
While I don't feel like sifting through the pages and pages of stuff the UN operates by, it's been noted before that the US Constitution takes the stance of the people granting rights to the governments and the UN Charter and other texts tend to take the opposite view.
"It is every free person's duty to help the Chinese people and NOT the Chinese government. By supplying the country (and thereby the ruling government) with money, the West is not helping the people."
I don't disagree with this or your opinion that what Cisco and Yahoo are doing are bad. However what you're asking for is a form of interventionism. By choosing whether or not to do business with a country for non-business reasons is an effort to try to have an effect in the internal politics of that country and how it governs itself. While interpersonal intervention has been agreed upon and codified about as far back as Hamurabi, international intervention is not.
What if we turned the tables? What if some printer manufacturer in Hong Kong decided to agree with their government on speech limitations? And what if they looked at the US and saw how such hate groups as the KKK have the ability to say such horrible things about other people and get away with it? They might decide not to sell printers in the US because the US can't and won't guarantee those printers won't be used to print things they don't think should be printed. Sure, the US probably wouldn't miss the printers (as we could probably make our own:) ), but not all countries that have such liberal speech laws also have that kind of manufacturing capability.
While I feel that what China is doing to its own people is wrong, I also know that people who would try to change our trade policy because of that opinion would play right into Beijing's cries of US hegemony. And I'm also personally frightened by the idea of "Pax Americana" (if for no other reason than our reluctance and ineptitude at dominating the world).
And what if Cisco and Yahoo decided not to play along with China? Beijing may not be able to set up the firewall they feel they need on their own, and they could very well blame these two companies for their own inability to allow internet access (much like how Baghdad blames the US for their inability to feed their own people). And those who support the decision would be seen as preventing the majority of Chinese from having any internet access (and the justification would likely be ignored).
Really, when you consider it, being hard on Beijing forces Beijing to be harder on the Chinese people. While Beijing may or may not be working towards peaceful change, it is true that the only other alternative is a bloody civil war/revolution (the name depends on who wins).
To be honest I don't think this was a particularly easy decision for either Cisco or Yahoo. Consider Cisco's entire existance relies on the free and unhindered flow of information, economically as well as philosophically (after all, if there are fewer internet sites to visit then there's no need to invest in the faster and more expensive routers). And also remember that this is the Yahoo that's thumbed their nose at Paris over auctions of Nazi memorabilia. They've decided to wash their hands of the cluster-fuck that is China (damned if they do, damned if they don't) and, while we may not agree with the decision, you can't really blame them for not wanting to indirectly start a war by not letting Beijing have what they want.
The only real solution to this is to codify intervention and standardize enforcement instead of requiring everybody to go through moral hand-wringing each and every time the situation comes up. And that's easier said than done when you also want to protect national sovereignty.
"I find it hard to imagine a truly democratic China without at least a partial breakup of the country."
China will never be able to transition to a more democratic form of government without breaking up for the sole reason that most of those peoples and regions didn't have any democratic say in whether or not Beijing rules them to begin with (with Tibet being the most obvious, but not only, example).
There are few countries in the world with China's size or population. India is slightly smaller but has a similar population size. They're as big as they are because most of the country had already considered themselves "Indians" for several centuries, even before the British Raj. But even then remember that Pakistan and Bangladesh felt the need to break away.
The US has a much smaller population but is almost identical in size. However, we've grown to our current size through deocratic processes (why they worked is another story). Territories didn't become part of the US proper until they voted themselves into the union. Territories are also more or less free to leave the US entirely (and have done so several times in the 20th century... it is to the chagrin of the "anti-imperialists" in the UN that the remaining territories of the US and the UK have repeatedly and voluntarily chosen to remain with their parent country). And because the matter of secession has never really been resolved (especially not by the Civil War), even states may be free to leave the union if they really want to. Just ask Arizona.
The only way China could possibly transition away from totalitarianism and still stay one country is if Beijing succeeds in deteriorating or outright eliminating non-Cantonese cultures and peoples (through either persecution or dillution) so that everybody considers themselves "Chinese."
Slashdot Mirror
"The cartoon was really created by the Russian government"
:)
:)
Actually, the Smurfs are far worse than any Soviet plot: they're French. That's French culture and their version of "liberte, egalite, fratenite" that's being broadcast on our TVs.
If anything, Gargamel and Azrael are Americans, our evil consumerism (looking to devour the poor Frogs^H^H^H^H^HSmurfs) and the domination of our culture. All they can do is run and hide in their tiny Republic controlled by what is little more than a benevolent dictator (which France has a history of, from Napoleon to Chirac). Of course you also have Brainy Smurf (Prime Minister, anybody?) who just thinks he has a say in government.
Magic then becomes analogous to nuclear weapons. Gargamel is a powerful wizard with the ability to destroy countries if given half a chance, and Papa Smurf has to use his own magic from time to time to threaten and defend themselves from him.
Of course Gargamel does have something to fear from a certain giant (here's the Soviet Union), and the Smurfs are always so smart for playing Gargamel and that giant (who's name I don't remember) against each other and secretly coming out on top.
Who else could imagine a single woman (and later an under-aged girl) satisfying the sexual desires of an entire village if not the French? Well, maybe not the entire village... Vainey is obviously gay and probably has something gone on on the side with Hefty and possibly Brainey.
If you're going to denounce the evils of the Smurfs, you should at least make sure to blame the right people.
And before you mod me down, we're talking about the evils of the media as well as a broadcast television show that is probably available for download (and suspiciously not included in the list of shows the networks are worried about). Laugh a little!
"The only valid concern I can think of from the TV industry is that sponsers may not pay for ads during reruns of a particular show if viewers already have copies of it to watch."
You mean then networks would have to come up with original content more often than two months out of the year? It's the end of the world, I tell you!
"Reruns really only serve the population of people who didn't see the episode in the original airing."
Their intent is to serve the networks. They get a profit from the commercials without having to pay the production costs of a new episode. Just a few bucks here to pay for the guy playing the glorified VCR. Personally I think that if advertisers pay the same for reruns as they do for original episodes then they're getting screwed.
"If I tape a show and give it to a friend, yes, that's illegal"
I'm not sure it is. If the government or anybody else with a security camera has the right to record what goes on in public and more or less do what they like with it (distribute it to the Discovery Channel for documentaries, for example), why is it then illegal to record a free public broadcast and treat it similarly?
I could understand doing this with cable and DSS broadcasts, since the encryption and/or physical wire dictate a private medium. But VHF and UHF television broadcasts? Hell, the FCC says I have a right to tune in to any signals that reach me and as long as I don't have to decode it I'm free to observe the content, whether it be military communications, cordless phone conversations, Morse code conversations on HAM radio, or Enterprise on UHF channel 54.
"The MPAA counted more than 5,000 locations on the Internet last year where people could download episodes for free."
... as opposed to watching the broadcast for free?
The networks already got their money, and they didn't get it from the viewers. The advertisers paid for the broadcast and there shouldn't be anything more to ask for (unless they want to take the position of cable companies where they charge both the advertier and the viewer). If the networks don't feel like they're getting enough money then they should be talking to the people that actually pay for it, and if the advertisers won't pay any more than that's your problem, not mine.
The shows are being broadcast whether I like them or not. My TV received those broadcasts but either wasn't on or was focused on a different channel at the time. I also have the right to record such broadcasts whether I watch it at the time of recording or not. While it's true that it's copyrighted matieral, giving the networks the ability to control what they themselves distributed to anybody and everybody free of charge is ridiculous. If this keeps up will the networks attempt to have a say in the affairs of TV and VCR manufacturers to "help the networks defend their rights?"
Consumers don't want to play by the network's rules. In a capitalist society it is the network that must adapt to the situation, not the consumer.
"Everyone bashes MS because of the issues in Windows, now they create a stable platform by controlling the hardware and people still are not happy."
First off, I don't feel that the Xbox has been on the market long enough to call it "stable." Remember that even their UltimateTV required patching.
Secondly, I was under the impression that the anti-trust case against Microsoft was partly over how they DID have an inordinate amount of control over PC hardware, or at least its manufacturers.
"What is the difference between this and Apple?"
For one I don't think Apple has regional lock-outs, nor am I aware of special requirements needed to make USB (or even FireWire) hardware beyond fees for the use of their patents.
Also I don't recall Apple ever having a monopoly, let alone having a history of abusing that monopoly to their own advantage. The US courts have found that Microsoft has systematically and repeatedly abused their monopoly over at least the past decade, so why shouldn't we be wary of anything Microsoft does that hurts consumers, no matter how slight they seem? Especially given the history of these anti-consumer practices snowballing in Microsoft's case...
"Why? Because when those poorly designed peripherals fail who shoulders the blame?"
The manufacturer of the peripheral. If your Canon printer breaks you don't call Dell (unless you bought it from Dell and Dell promised to support it).
And when it comes to consoles, I don't recall Nintendo ever getting blamed for sucky peripherals, even ones with Nintendo's "Seal of Quality" on them. Consider the Power Glove.
"Bottom line, I think these people could mount a fairly strong challenge to at least the lawsuit, and possibly take the route of the DMCA being unconstitutional: It's being used to make a _fair use_ under copyright -- space/time shifting of user data -- illegal."
I agree that the US Supreme Court would probably find the DMCA unconstitutional. The question is whether or not it will ever get there to begin with.
First and foremost a legal defense costs somebody somewhere money. In almost all cases the copyright holder will have more cash and can win by the legal equivalent of attrition.
Secondly, I think Adobe's example of dropping charges against Sklyarov when things got a little too interesting may be a trend. The copyright holders probably know that if the DMCA ever reached the US Supreme Court then the game is over, but why not bankrupt the defendant by dragging him through the appeals process up to and just shy of the Supreme Court and then "settling" with them just before they get there?
We aren't talking about CDs and DVDs and such. A Game Boy Advance cartridge is more or less a proprietary format manufactured exclusively by Ninento for use on Nintendo hardware specifically designed at least to fit the cartridge in the slot. I'm willing to bet that Nintendo will claim that, by figuring out what the different pins on the cartridge do, the manufacturer defeated their "encryption" in violation of the DMCA.
While my own personal tastes in media probably don't apply to the vast majority of the world, I find that I tire quickly of media when all the different stations/channels/websites show exactly the same thing, and to that end I tend to find more alternative media outlets for my media.
The over-hyped, over-commercialized, formulaic crap that Clear Channel and the like own on the radio has given me plenty of incentive to listen to NPR more.
When I watch TV most of the time I end up watching origina content that tends not to be on other channels. Instead of watching the stuff on typical broadcast TV (and all the "touching, emotional, heart-warming and timely" crap that comes with it), I end up watching A&E, Discovery and Cartoon Network when I have cable/satellite, and mostly PBS when I don't.
As for news on the internet, I barely bother with American news outlets any more. I get the generalized stuff from the BBC, CBC, and occasionally ABC (the Australian one), and go to Stratfor for my in-depth stuff. Even the People's Daily has something new and interesting when compared to the recycled AP/Reuters stuff that permeates the US. And at least I KNOW where the bias is there.
Just because Network A has five viewers and Network B has five doesn't mean that buying them both will net you ten.
"The XBOX is a game *console*."
For now.
Microsoft has figured out a way figure out allowable USB devices and those that aren't allowed. If Microsoft brought this feature over to their Windows softwre, things could get interesting. The first thing that comes to mind is that Microsoft now has a big stick to enforce driver signing requirements. If you don't play along (ie. make drivers for non-Windows OSes), Windows will forever identify your hardware as a possible security risk (and possibly take action because of it).
"Playstation made it so you couldn't play japanese playstation games."
And as far as I know this has yet to be tested in court. This is right on up there with region coding on DVDs and may violate trade treaties the same way.
Of course, at least in the US it's still legal to mod your hardware to accept foreign software.
"I don't see the big deal, here. If Japan wants to sell controlers, they'll make them with the appropriate "US" USB"
Without even getting into whether they could or not, should they have to?
"Has recieving spam ever killed anyone?"
Fine, I'll generalize it: Aiding a known felon is itself a felony.
I'm a bit of a rabid video game fanatic. When all is said and one I have 10 consoles and hand-held systems lying around the house, as well as quite a few games for each. I also tend to be a big fan of Nintendo and their work (I have every one of their systems, including a Virtual Boy). I'm forcing myself to hold out on getting a GameCube until Metroid Prime came out. Or at least I was.
I can't begin to describe how utterly wrong this is to me. I mean, the Sklyarov bit was one thing, but this... this is a cornerstone of the EMU community! This IS the EMU community! It is also an example of everything that is good and right in the EMU community. Other than the emulators themselves, there is NO copyrighted material at zophar.net, not even PSX BIOS images. Their efforts support coding afficionados (both emulator and public domain game writers) and nostaligic gamers alike, giving them an opportunity to explore their passions that they otherwise wouldn't have. They also fill the gaps that publishers leave by hosting translation patches for ROM images, in more languages than you can shake a stick at. In my opinion this is tantamount to Lockheed-Martin suing the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.
The defense of ZD in their efforts to both support themselves monetarily (more-or-less on a non-profit level) and to support video game fans in execrizing their Fair Use rights with their legally-owned software in my opinion comes before my personal addiction to video games. I want to help ZD in some way, and seeing as how I don't have a law degree all I can do is donate what money I might have spent on video games to the cause of getting ZD a good lawyer. And I think anybody who's ever used ZD at one point or another should consider doing this.
So if Swampgas would be so kind as to set up a PayPal donation button or something of the kind, I'll gladly start by sending him the $200 I would have otherwise spent on a GameCube.
You're confusing Pennsylvania with West Virginia.
I've read a few of the opinions here about why they're uneasy about blocking off entire domains like this, but I still can't see this as anything but a Good Thing(tm).
There are those who are uneasy about blocking off access to a free and open medium. But if the medium is truly free, then you should also be free to block traffic that you don't want. Seriously, if you carry that point of view to its logical conlusion you shouldn't be trying to avoid spam to begin with and reading it should be compulsory. Just because everybody has a voice doesn't mean you have to listen.
Should ISPs be held accountable for the actions of their users? No. But they should be held accountable for their own actions, and one of their actions is aiding and abetting known spamers. They've received the warnings and complaints, they've seen their own mail server traffic and have access to their own logs, and their decision to do nothing implicates them. If a bartender can be held accountable for letting a known drunk drive home and if a gun store owner can be held accountable for selling a gun to a known felon, why shouldn't ISP's be held accountable for selling service to a known spammer?
And as for the legitimate mails that may get blocked by firewalling off Korea or whatever, why should we be held accountable for the foolish choices made by these customers? If anything, blocking their e-mails should be seen as a benefit, allowing the user to learn first-hand the despicable pro-spam tactics of their ISP and make an informed decision. If they don't jump ship after that they deserve what they get.
They're our routers, our mail servers, as long as our actions don't abuse other peoples' resources (like spammers) why shouldn't we do whatever we damn well please with them?
"What about getting laws that say that unsolicitated mail is illegal? Shouldn't that do the trick? Anybody got some good reason for why laws like this shouldn't come true?"
Spammers and the ISPs that support them have reasons not to do that. And while they may or may not be good reasons, they have money and they have lobbyists, so don't hold your breath for such legislation unless this becomes a big issue this November.
"All it takes for a given gov't to lose power, is for the majority of it's citizens to stop tolerating it."
That depends entirely on how well-armed and loyal the military is. The People's Army is one of those militaries that promotes its officers almost exclusively on the basis of loyalty. While they may suck in the field, they have the tanks and the planes while the civilian populace don't.
"Lets say we had ten kids in a room. One of them is the dictator of the rest and he tells them everything, when to eat, shit, sleep lay down or stand up. And none of them ever argue. If one day all nine of them simply say "No more. We do whatever we want now" What would the leader do?"
He'd have a clue, get a gune and make one of his first rules "Nobody can have a gun but me." Recall that Nazi Germany was the first country to make all firearms completely illegal.
And besides, when you look at the history of revolutions, there seems to be a pattern of being extremely bloody and in most cases devouring themselves. Putting up with a dictator might seem preferable to the alternative.
"Microsoft never gave a reason for this, and it is assumed that MS made this change to restrict other OSes from running along side of Windows."
While I'm not really disagreeing with you (since nobody really knows outside of Microsoft), I always assumed that was done mostly to convince consumers that Me was "Win2k, the home game." There were several other little GUI tweaks (moving networking connections to the Settings section of the Start menu comes ot mind) that seemed to be put in simply to make it look and feel more like Win2k. And since there's no DOS option in Win2k...
On top of that, I also figured that it was just another step in Microsoft's odd little quirk in trying to wish DOS away. They've been trying for at least a decade to push out DOS if for no other reason than DOS competes with Windows in the OS game. By decreasing support for DOS apps, they're forcing app writers to write for Windows instead (forcing users to upgrade to Windows and further limiting support for IBM's PC-DOS 2000 in swing).
And finally Microsoft could always say that MS-DOS 8.0 (it's tricky to find out what version came with Me) simply couldn't do anything but boot into Windows. After all, all previous Windows 9x versions only came with MS-DOS 7.x, so who knows what big change they made in the jump to 8.0.
(Of course, somebody could and maybe have figured out how to eliminate some of these possibilities, but I haven't seen any yet.)
Yeah, but it's a real bitch to astro-turf when there's only one employee to send the "flood this survey" e-mail to.
> "You have no right to say unpopular things in
> a medium literally owned and maintained by the
> populous. They own it, they say what you can
> and can't do with it. Simple as that."
"Bullshit. That's complete, utter, bullshit. Point me to the Supreme Court decision that supports THAT load of crap."
Roth v. United States and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe come to mind as SCUS decisions preventing private individuals from expressing themselves on a public medium. Ask and ye shall receive...
"Now, you have no right to say unpopular things in a privately owned medium, but the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium."
I reference you back to the two SCUS decisions I just mentioned.
"Not to mention that your claim is in direct contravention to 200+ years of Supreme Court cases that have, time after time, affirmed a right to free speech."
Once again I refer you back to the two SCUS cases I linked to and the others like it (be careful what you wish for...). You have a right to free speech but you have no right to dictate where you can say it or to use other peoples' property in saying it. And that includes public property.
"The inherent human right to free speech cannot be denied at this point."
Maybe I didn't say it enough times yet: A right to free speech doesn't mean a right to say it anywhere you wish. Unlike your previous assertations, SCUS has time and time again sided against free speech when the speech in question violated the rights of others.
On top of that, just about every state in the union has laws on the books restricting hate speech to some extent. While the laws do not outlaw it, these laws do require such things as including your name and address on such works (ie. anonymous hate speech is illegal). And these laws have stood up in the courts time and time again.
"Finally, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it grants rights to the government,"
Put in the word "federal" and I'll agree with you. The US Constitution only has some general rules and requirements for membership in the US. States have their own constitutions (and must, by way of Article I) and many are written in quite a different style from the federal text. Which is as it should be, seeing as how states and the feds have two different forms of government (if they did, then we'd be talking about "county rights" at the state level).
"and denies any right not explicitly granted."
Again, you forgot the words "to the federal government." Read carefully (emphasis mine):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the poeple.
States are a different body from individuals and have their own rights, completely separate from yours and mine. And despite the damage done to state's rights by such things as the Seventeenth Amendment, state's rights are still very much alive.
"That's right, including me. Which means I have the right to use it as well. If my use of public property damages it, the government has the right to restrict my actions. If it simply offends you, suck it up and deal. You're not the only one who pays taxes here."
Nor are you. Yours are only a drop in the bucket. And because public property is paid for by so many people, the rules for its use need to be acceptable to everybody (or at least the majority).
Going back to the public road analogy, simply because you helped pay for them doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the speed limit, stop signs, etc. as you see fit. These are restrictions placed on the use of public property by the public that paid for it. Speeding and drunk driving aren't just illegal if you hit someone or something (ie. "damage property"), they're illegal outright.
"Bullshit. Public property is my property. The fact that it's your property as well does not deny my ownership."
No, but it does deny you the use of the property as you see fit. Once again, you can't speed on public roads without breaking the law.
"The pro-spam lobby wants the right to use property that belongs entirely to other people."
Oh? Didn't they pay for the use of their ISP's mail servers? In fact, I recall a recent court case where the court ordered the ISP not to drop the spammer...
"your claim that there is no right to free speech on public property is thoroughly contradicted by several centuries of literature, law, and court decisions throughout the western world."
Here's a quick question: What gives the FCC the right to restrict the use of certain words in radio and television broadcasts?
Here's another: How come you can't get copies of Hustler at your local library?
Yet one more: Why don't you see nudity or foul language on billboards?
The answer to all of these questions is that these are restrictions on speech in a public medium. And these are far from the only examples.
"In fact,unless I am very much mistaken, the war of the northern aggression was fought to prevent the departure of certain of the territories. There has been no announced change of policy on that matter since the 1860s."
But it wasn't about JUST secession. The war was also over balance between the state's right to leave the union and Congress requiring a republican form of government in those states (which is kind of hard to do when you have people that have no rights and no say in their government).
In many cases it was also about Lincoln's abuse of power after the initial wave of secessions (a war over the perceived abuses in the others' governments, if you will), but the secession matter still hasn't been dealt with. Several constitutional amendments were more or less forced upon the southern states after the war, but none of them said anything about disallowing secession. And since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment seems to leave the right to secession with the state.
"Since they are not up for election and have lifetime terms, they are free to accept all the bribes they want, support the people who are paying them at the expense of The People, and never fear for their jobs."
But the fact that they don't have to pay for political campaigns removes the main venue that bribers hide their funds transactions in. And they do have to fear for their jobs. Impeachments aren't just for presidents.
"Elected officials have to be cleaner. Sure, they need reelection money, but if they go directly against the will of all their constituents (assuming everyone else agreed on anything) they are gone regardless of how much they have in their warchests."
That only holds true if the public is able to remember next election year that they don't like their public official and why. The longer the term, the more likely the constituants are to forget.
"Windows Powered Smartphone 2002?"
If nothing else, one had to respect the Microsot marketing department for being able to shovel crap onto the consumer by the pound at the consumer's cost. But after choosing a product name like that...
I already made some long posts about most of this stuff earlier, so I'll just toss out a few minor points:
"And as for the chinese people who posted to say "it's not so bad", it would be alot worse if you had any un-popular thoughts."
I agree with you, but I'm a Westerner agreeing with a Westerner. Remember that east Asian cultures tend to value group harmony more than personal privileges. For many Chinese, "not that bad for the majority" may be a benefit that outweighs "a few individuals get persecuted."
Who's right and who's wrong is something I think should be left to the individual, but again I'm a Westerner and tend to think that a lot of things should be left to the individual.
"The government of any country is formed by the people of said country. And all those peoples are responsible for the actions of the government."
In China's case I can't really agree. Though that piece of paper they call a constitution says that all power rests with the people, it's pretty clear that all power rests in Beijing, who then doles out a few privileges here and there. The only times that a people are really responsible for their government are when the government more closely resembles that of the US.
While I don't feel like sifting through the pages and pages of stuff the UN operates by, it's been noted before that the US Constitution takes the stance of the people granting rights to the governments and the UN Charter and other texts tend to take the opposite view.
"It is every free person's duty to help the Chinese people and NOT the Chinese government. By supplying the country (and thereby the ruling government) with money, the West is not helping the people."
:) ), but not all countries that have such liberal speech laws also have that kind of manufacturing capability.
I don't disagree with this or your opinion that what Cisco and Yahoo are doing are bad. However what you're asking for is a form of interventionism. By choosing whether or not to do business with a country for non-business reasons is an effort to try to have an effect in the internal politics of that country and how it governs itself. While interpersonal intervention has been agreed upon and codified about as far back as Hamurabi, international intervention is not.
What if we turned the tables? What if some printer manufacturer in Hong Kong decided to agree with their government on speech limitations? And what if they looked at the US and saw how such hate groups as the KKK have the ability to say such horrible things about other people and get away with it? They might decide not to sell printers in the US because the US can't and won't guarantee those printers won't be used to print things they don't think should be printed. Sure, the US probably wouldn't miss the printers (as we could probably make our own
While I feel that what China is doing to its own people is wrong, I also know that people who would try to change our trade policy because of that opinion would play right into Beijing's cries of US hegemony. And I'm also personally frightened by the idea of "Pax Americana" (if for no other reason than our reluctance and ineptitude at dominating the world).
And what if Cisco and Yahoo decided not to play along with China? Beijing may not be able to set up the firewall they feel they need on their own, and they could very well blame these two companies for their own inability to allow internet access (much like how Baghdad blames the US for their inability to feed their own people). And those who support the decision would be seen as preventing the majority of Chinese from having any internet access (and the justification would likely be ignored).
Really, when you consider it, being hard on Beijing forces Beijing to be harder on the Chinese people. While Beijing may or may not be working towards peaceful change, it is true that the only other alternative is a bloody civil war/revolution (the name depends on who wins).
To be honest I don't think this was a particularly easy decision for either Cisco or Yahoo. Consider Cisco's entire existance relies on the free and unhindered flow of information, economically as well as philosophically (after all, if there are fewer internet sites to visit then there's no need to invest in the faster and more expensive routers). And also remember that this is the Yahoo that's thumbed their nose at Paris over auctions of Nazi memorabilia. They've decided to wash their hands of the cluster-fuck that is China (damned if they do, damned if they don't) and, while we may not agree with the decision, you can't really blame them for not wanting to indirectly start a war by not letting Beijing have what they want.
The only real solution to this is to codify intervention and standardize enforcement instead of requiring everybody to go through moral hand-wringing each and every time the situation comes up. And that's easier said than done when you also want to protect national sovereignty.
"I find it hard to imagine a truly democratic China without at least a partial breakup of the country."
China will never be able to transition to a more democratic form of government without breaking up for the sole reason that most of those peoples and regions didn't have any democratic say in whether or not Beijing rules them to begin with (with Tibet being the most obvious, but not only, example).
There are few countries in the world with China's size or population. India is slightly smaller but has a similar population size. They're as big as they are because most of the country had already considered themselves "Indians" for several centuries, even before the British Raj. But even then remember that Pakistan and Bangladesh felt the need to break away.
The US has a much smaller population but is almost identical in size. However, we've grown to our current size through deocratic processes (why they worked is another story). Territories didn't become part of the US proper until they voted themselves into the union. Territories are also more or less free to leave the US entirely (and have done so several times in the 20th century... it is to the chagrin of the "anti-imperialists" in the UN that the remaining territories of the US and the UK have repeatedly and voluntarily chosen to remain with their parent country). And because the matter of secession has never really been resolved (especially not by the Civil War), even states may be free to leave the union if they really want to. Just ask Arizona.
The only way China could possibly transition away from totalitarianism and still stay one country is if Beijing succeeds in deteriorating or outright eliminating non-Cantonese cultures and peoples (through either persecution or dillution) so that everybody considers themselves "Chinese."