Well most attackers who aren't just kids messing around but seriously seeking information for the sake of freedom of information are generally seeking out Government documents or Corporate info. This information cannot be compare to our private info. Some how I don't see my CC number as being important information for the masses to view, but some secure government documents (espcially those hidding acts of government that the public wouldn't not approve of even if they were in their "best interest") are worth being released. Corporate documents that indicate how they are screwing over the public should be uncovered (don't pretend that corporations haven't screwed over the public). People who want information to be free are not interested in personal information that would be consider private.
It is not really fair to compare the two types of information and call us hypocrites.
At my university there are exam banks (hard copy and online) for the VERY PURPOSE of studying. There is nothing wrong with focused studying, especally in a computer or technology based course. Besides if there is enough old exams it becomes hard to focus because so many different old questions are present.
Presently it costs a lot more to get into MIT then buy a computer, and if you spending enough to get into MIT--in a technology course--you really should have a computer. It may not be right that you have to be financially stable to have a computer and go to university, but this action has little effect on that issue
I gather that this is not for the students at MIT as much, (they have real access to the information) but for the internet world as a whole. It still true have to own a computer or have access, but there is a limited to what MIT can do.
ignoring that this thread is dumb you dont really need a comma if one is using modern block style that what i learned in school but hey gammar has to be the most objective thing i know about
if youre someone who feels the need to comment on my complete lack of punctuation please dont im aware
note this not a direct reply to the above message, only observations about fair use
The industry responds that fair use of music does not include the right to make entire backup CDs, and that consumers will still be able to make cassette copies.
So we are not allowed the make full back up of cds. This is new information to me, but on the other hand though I am always curious about copywrite I have never looked up the details. In my opinnion this is an issue that should be debated in court, but on here is good enough for now. Seeing how I do not have the right to make a backup (copy) of the information on the CD, then obvious I don't own the data, it not mine (even to the extend the licence I get allows me that being personal use). I own a round piece of plastic. I believe the "industry" are incorrect in their interrupation.
To understand the present one must understand the past. In the old days song writer never got paid unless they were comissioned by royality. Performing the music was what was important. In the oral tradition freely sharing the songs were the only way the songs could surive. When sheet music started being created on a large scale, the copy write laws enable the write of the piece to recieve payment when the music was purchased to be played. (but would a band playing a song they just happen to know be arrested for such a act?). Since the age of recorded music, copywrite hasn't been working so well. The purpose of copywrite is to get money to the people writing and performing the music so that they may survive at such a living. I'm not sure how things should be fixed to work, but I know the DMCA isn't the asnwer. Performer are still paid when they perform, but not it has become more like marketing for sale for recordings. The freedom of an oral tradition is now illegal.
I only listen to CDs on a computer. I also use my computer to DJ. This replaces buying very expensive CD decks. This idea put that into new method of DJ into jepordy. I can buy CD but I get pitch shift them on my computer because I can't rip them. (note DJ has all sorts of fun copy writing questions)
If Pride thinks his music will not show up on the internet, well he is crazy. With in a hour of the release of the copy-protected CD the music will be online by someone recording through the line on their computer. Then that one version will be copied and copied, not else needs to do any work what so ever.
So CDs will be replaced with "secure" devices in the future (ahem like DVDs which work great for business but screw the freedom of opensource... see oral tradition). Well please view this artical found in Discover Mag. Which paints the future we find ourselves heading to faster and faster.
Please feel free to e-mail me at deck403@hotmail.com with any comment for I always indever to learn more
Slashdot Mirror
Well most attackers who aren't just kids messing around but seriously seeking information for the sake of freedom of information are generally seeking out Government documents or Corporate info. This information cannot be compare to our private info. Some how I don't see my CC number as being important information for the masses to view, but some secure government documents (espcially those hidding acts of government that the public wouldn't not approve of even if they were in their "best interest") are worth being released. Corporate documents that indicate how they are screwing over the public should be uncovered (don't pretend that corporations haven't screwed over the public). People who want information to be free are not interested in personal information that would be consider private.
It is not really fair to compare the two types of information and call us hypocrites.
At my university there are exam banks (hard copy and online) for the VERY PURPOSE of studying. There is nothing wrong with focused studying, especally in a computer or technology based course. Besides if there is enough old exams it becomes hard to focus because so many different old questions are present.
Presently it costs a lot more to get into MIT then buy a computer, and if you spending enough to get into MIT--in a technology course--you really should have a computer. It may not be right that you have to be financially stable to have a computer and go to university, but this action has little effect on that issue
I gather that this is not for the students at MIT as much, (they have real access to the information) but for the internet world as a whole. It still true have to own a computer or have access, but there is a limited to what MIT can do.
ignoring that this thread is dumb you dont really need a comma if one is using modern block style that what i learned in school but hey gammar has to be the most objective thing i know about
if youre someone who feels the need to comment on my complete lack of punctuation please dont im aware
note this not a direct reply to the above message, only observations about fair use
So we are not allowed the make full back up of cds. This is new information to me, but on the other hand though I am always curious about copywrite I have never looked up the details. In my opinnion this is an issue that should be debated in court, but on here is good enough for now. Seeing how I do not have the right to make a backup (copy) of the information on the CD, then obvious I don't own the data, it not mine (even to the extend the licence I get allows me that being personal use). I own a round piece of plastic. I believe the "industry" are incorrect in their interrupation.
To understand the present one must understand the past. In the old days song writer never got paid unless they were comissioned by royality. Performing the music was what was important. In the oral tradition freely sharing the songs were the only way the songs could surive. When sheet music started being created on a large scale, the copy write laws enable the write of the piece to recieve payment when the music was purchased to be played. (but would a band playing a song they just happen to know be arrested for such a act?). Since the age of recorded music, copywrite hasn't been working so well. The purpose of copywrite is to get money to the people writing and performing the music so that they may survive at such a living. I'm not sure how things should be fixed to work, but I know the DMCA isn't the asnwer. Performer are still paid when they perform, but not it has become more like marketing for sale for recordings. The freedom of an oral tradition is now illegal.
I only listen to CDs on a computer. I also use my computer to DJ. This replaces buying very expensive CD decks. This idea put that into new method of DJ into jepordy. I can buy CD but I get pitch shift them on my computer because I can't rip them. (note DJ has all sorts of fun copy writing questions)
If Pride thinks his music will not show up on the internet, well he is crazy. With in a hour of the release of the copy-protected CD the music will be online by someone recording through the line on their computer. Then that one version will be copied and copied, not else needs to do any work what so ever.
So CDs will be replaced with "secure" devices in the future (ahem like DVDs which work great for business but screw the freedom of opensource ... see oral tradition). Well please view this artical found in Discover Mag. Which paints the future we find ourselves heading to faster and faster.
Please feel free to e-mail me at deck403@hotmail.com with any comment for I always indever to learn more