The Pirate Act is not yet law, but since the enactment of the No Electronic Theft Act, uploading is indeed a criminal offense, and I doubt you get up to five years and a quarter million in fines for a misdemeanor.
Now, skipping commercials on DVDs, if it requires that you go around the CSS, does violate the DMCA---though I'm not sure if only the coder who cracked CSS (thus creating a device to circumvent copyright protection) is liable under that law, or you are for using it. IANAL, after all. But what you describe is mostly already illegal.
It becomes criminal infringement if you make money off of doing it, or are part of an organized ring that deals in piracy. Although, IANAL.
I got pimp-slapped for repeating this some time ago right here on Slashdot, so allow me to pass on some enlightenment about US copyright law.
The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act "amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines".
Nothing there about any "organized ring". If you're running a P2P client and you upload six hojillion copies of the latest plebeian pablum, guess what---you're liable for jail time and a hefty fine. Enjoy!
I'm pretty sure that downloaders aren't liable in the same fashion that uploaders are. P2P has blurred the line, but... "Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it." Which right guaranteed by copyright is the downloader infringing? (Here' a short list.) (By contrast, the uploader is obviously usurping the owner's right to reproduction (and, presumably, distribution).)
The downloader is not copying or selling the work; not importing or exporting it; not creating a derivative work; not performing it or displaying it publically; not selling or assigning those above rights. So, if downloading is infringement, and infringement is horning in on the copyright holder's exclusive rights---which rights is the downloader infringing on?
I assume you guys are server-limited, not bandwidth-limited, when the Slashdot beast comes around. So why don't you put up a static version of the page when the Slashdotting hits? Why don't you at least use some sort of caching to reduce the load on your servers? Is there something obvious that I, not being a mighty server admin, am missing?
Dan Savage thinks it's wrong, and will tell you off for doing it. Dan Savage, however, will not subject you to legal sanction for eating poop. See, that's the difference between Dan Savage's opinion and Congress's laws. And it's why you should be more specific about what you mean when you say "out of bounds".
You forgot to mention X-Files, which they ranked above Babylon 5, even, in the number four spot. That was fantasy, damn it. You can call it post-modern fantasy if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Carter et al. had no gorram clue what The Truth actually was, so that the mytharc turned to shit by season six.
(Daren Morgan, however, was still fuckin' brilliant.)
I'd be a lot more convinced if more people actually cared about copyright issues. How many people were even aware that Eldred v. Ashcroft was going on when it was up at the SCOTUS?
I'm surprised they didn't mention Canada. See, Canada currently has Life+50 copyright (while Europe, for instance, has Life+70); unless someone leans on them, the complete works of A. A. Milne (d. 1956) will become public domain there on January 1, 2007. So, given that Winnie the Pooh is a particularly large cash cow for Disney, who wants to bet that Canada mysteriously chooses to extend their copyrights to "harmonize" (or whatever the bullshit phrase is) their copyrights with ours, or with Europe's?
Well, I was hoping for a response from someone supporting the system---someone who could actually back up the system as it stands today. Because "THE POWERFUL TRAMPLE THE WEAK" wasn't what I was looking for.
That said, remember how the ancient Greeks chose their leaders by lot from the available pool of citizens? Man, they had a lot more faith in their average citizen than we do.
I work at a helpdesk, where I frequently support users I've never heard from before and will never again. Thus, I explain the same things time and time again. For instance, when I tell them to turn off their computer and turn it back on, they will, more often than not, turn off their monitor and turn it back on. It's because they're not computer-savvy, and I shouldn't be hard on them, right?
Well, consider this: a desktop computer consists of a device that does the actual processing (the box), an output device (the monitor) and an input device (the keyboard). However, the user thinks of the monitor as "the computer". Now, think of the standard home theater setup, which people tend not to have much trouble using: a device that does the actual processing (the DVD player), an output device (the TV) and an input device (the remote control). So why does the same user, confronted with what's largely the same user experience, do something analogous to thinking of the TV as "the home theater system".
I've been trying to come up with an answer for that one, and I have yet to figure out a satisfactory one. Has anyone else run into the same problem?
I dunno; the principle for Solaris, which (to hear you tell it) lacks any package management or automatic dependency resolution, doesn't sound quite like the principle for, say, Debian, which, presumably, you could have done a single apt-get install foo for.
Can someone explain to me the function of jury selection? Why can lawyers ask questions beyond "do you know the people involved in the case?" and "do you understand the responsibilities involved in jury service?"? How does voir dire differ in any meaningful sense from jury stacking?
Man, you must be new here. Haven't you seen the standard Slashdot gun control debate?
A: Why would anyone want a gun? B: To shoot criminals who try to attack you! A: Wouldn't it be safer to just give them your wallet or whatever? B: Criminals are cowards, who only attack people because they think they can get away with it. If a random potential victim could be packing, do you think they'd still try it? A: I'd still rather not get shot. B: Okay, fine, I'll be over to your place to take your computer, because you'd rather not fight for your property.
and Pudge for writing the code to convert 900k users, 60k stories, and 13 million comments to comply
Huh? By doing what, running them through HTMLTidy? Oh, the horror! What sort of "conversion" is required on the data, when we're just talking about changing the presentation layer?
Look, this conversion was done by A List Apart nearly two years ago. I'm not impressed. And don't give me some crap about how it's hard for Slashdot to change its code, because it's such a high-traffic site. Slashdot is miniscule compared to Wikipedia, (which runs entirely off donated hardware, to boot). If a bunch of volunteers at Wikipedia can write code which serves up validating HTML (and does a hell of a lot more complex work than Slashcode does), why did it take the well-paid proprietors of Slashdot two years to get there, when someone had already done the hard work for them?
Perhaps they're too busy posting dupes, abusing the moderation system and otherwise being petty emperors of their ever-shrinking (see above graph) realm?
At least Jon Katz has faded into well-deserved obscurity. "In our post-Katrina world, blah blah blah..."
Did it use the Perl DBI interface, like so? I don't know if DBD::CSV is smart enough to not read more of the file than it has to---I'd assume so, but I've never used it for heavy-duty data churning.
Google uses OCR for their books. It's not horrible, but it's far from perfect. If you looked at the text that the OCR output, it'd look like... well, like OCR output. But you see the page image, not the OCR'd text, and that's good enough for what it's doing.
What would be useful would be for Google to release the scanned pages of public-domain books, much like the Million Book Project does, so that they could be spiffed up properly by Distributed Proofreaders and made into high-quality ebooks distributed by Project Gutenberg.
(The reason I'm not worried about progress is that I don't believe there's been any risk of society progressing for a long time. There have been few cultural improvements since the 1700s and the main advances in technology since then have been used more to cripple subsequent advances in culture.)
Gee, I suppose an extra thirty-five to forty years of life expectancy at birth (since 1850!) isn't really an improvement in society. I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where I won't expect to die before I turn forty. Or a society where we don't tend to murder each other quite as much as we did three hundred years ago. (I don't have a copy of Freakonomics handy, but murder rates in Europe are down by something like an order of magnitude since then.)
Are you claiming that running around dying young and being murdered (c. 1700) wasn't really that bad? Or are you complaining that the radio doesn't play music that you like?
It's a common trope to whine that technology never changed basic human nature. It's so common that it's taken for granted. It's also entirely wrong. Technology is the only thing that has ever changed so-called "basic human nature".
The folks at Wal-Mart always check my signature for purchases over ten bucks. I think it's a recent development, but over the last few weeks, it's been every single time. An edict must have come down from on high.
Jamie Zawinski said it better than I could have.
on
The Tech of Burning Man
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The hypocrisy of the Burning Man organization really pisses me off.
Last year, rzr_grl registered as a pro photographer, and so she got the press kit, which was possibly the most hypocritical thing I've ever read. Basically, the Burning Man Organization's attitude is, "if you take a photo on the playa, we own it, and get to tell you when and where and how it can be published. Even if you take that photo of yourself, inside your tent, surrounded by your own stuff."
Update: rzr_grl pointed out that I forgot the best part: they also demand a percentage of profit (10% or 20%) plus that you send them a copy of all photos, for them to use however they like.
Which is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing -- that's just a matter of contract. You buy the ticket, you camp on the land they rented, you submit to their rules, and their rules consist of a Disney-like protection of their brand. They try to protect the image of "Burning Man" in as structured and proprietary a way as Disney protects the mouse: you can be sure that Disney demands the same kind of submission the part of any press who take photos inside Disneyland.
But the thing that really pisses me off is that they do all this -- they lay out this completely one-sided you-work-for-us lawyerly document -- and they fill the whole thing with an incredible amount of pomo hippie noise, in a sad attempt to disguise what they're actually saying! They go on at length about how they are viciously protecting their brand for your own good. And every other paragraph says stuff like "Larry Harvey -- dare we say it -- a Genius..."
They're taking a totally standard, normal, corporate line toward their theme park -- but that idea embarrasses them, and would offend their clientele, so they cloak it up in bullshit and hope that everyone reading it will buy the lie that it's really some spontaneous group-hug, and not a theme park. (Try to listen to them explain why it's ok for them to charge money in center camp, but it's not ok for anyone else to do it without your brain melting with the incredulousness of it.)
She really needs to find that press packet and type it in, it will make each and every one of you vomit, I promise.
Now, you might say that the motivations are different, and that makes the intentional obfuscation ok, but A: it doesn't, and B: I don't think the motivations are different at all.
Disney protects the mouse because the mouse's image is their whole business, and any change in how the mouse is viewed by the public could effect their ability to do their thing.
Burning Man is no different. Disney protects their brand because if someone else exploited their park in a way they didn't like, it would no longer be projecting the image they want, and the park would no longer be profitable (or, "full of happy little kids" if you prefer to look at it that way.)
I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy: Disney is at least honest about what they are doing and why. The Burning Man people went through such amazing verbal and mental gymnastics to avoid using the word "brand" it was comical.
I've enjoyed Burning Man every time I've gone, but after reading that document, I'll be damned if they're getting another dime from me. Which is a major contributing factor to why I'm not going this year: I'd feel dirty giving them my money, and sneaking in sounds like just too much effort (given that I have little tolerance for roughing it.)
I think someone should do Capitalism Camp: the theme of the camp will be to trade US Currency for Goods and Services. If anyone complains, tell them, "Dude, radical self-indulgence! Stop harshing my mellow!"
Now, I am not complaining that Burning Man is about money and shouldn't be. I've got no problem with money.
Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Act is not yet law, but since the enactment of the No Electronic Theft Act, uploading is indeed a criminal offense, and I doubt you get up to five years and a quarter million in fines for a misdemeanor.
Now, skipping commercials on DVDs, if it requires that you go around the CSS, does violate the DMCA---though I'm not sure if only the coder who cracked CSS (thus creating a device to circumvent copyright protection) is liable under that law, or you are for using it. IANAL, after all. But what you describe is mostly already illegal.
It becomes criminal infringement if you make money off of doing it, or are part of an organized ring that deals in piracy. Although, IANAL.
I got pimp-slapped for repeating this some time ago right here on Slashdot, so allow me to pass on some enlightenment about US copyright law.
The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act "amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines".
Nothing there about any "organized ring". If you're running a P2P client and you upload six hojillion copies of the latest plebeian pablum, guess what---you're liable for jail time and a hefty fine. Enjoy!
I'm pretty sure that downloaders aren't liable in the same fashion that uploaders are. P2P has blurred the line, but... "Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it." Which right guaranteed by copyright is the downloader infringing? (Here' a short list.) (By contrast, the uploader is obviously usurping the owner's right to reproduction (and, presumably, distribution).)
The downloader is not copying or selling the work; not importing or exporting it; not creating a derivative work; not performing it or displaying it publically; not selling or assigning those above rights. So, if downloading is infringement, and infringement is horning in on the copyright holder's exclusive rights---which rights is the downloader infringing on?
I assume you guys are server-limited, not bandwidth-limited, when the Slashdot beast comes around. So why don't you put up a static version of the page when the Slashdotting hits? Why don't you at least use some sort of caching to reduce the load on your servers? Is there something obvious that I, not being a mighty server admin, am missing?
I think of pro wrestlers as live-action stuntmen.
Dan Savage thinks it's wrong, and will tell you off for doing it. Dan Savage, however, will not subject you to legal sanction for eating poop. See, that's the difference between Dan Savage's opinion and Congress's laws. And it's why you should be more specific about what you mean when you say "out of bounds".
You forgot to mention X-Files, which they ranked above Babylon 5, even, in the number four spot. That was fantasy, damn it. You can call it post-modern fantasy if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Carter et al. had no gorram clue what The Truth actually was, so that the mytharc turned to shit by season six.
(Daren Morgan, however, was still fuckin' brilliant.)
I think you mean PNM. XPM is kinda limited-use.
I'd be a lot more convinced if more people actually cared about copyright issues. How many people were even aware that Eldred v. Ashcroft was going on when it was up at the SCOTUS?
I'm surprised they didn't mention Canada. See, Canada currently has Life+50 copyright (while Europe, for instance, has Life+70); unless someone leans on them, the complete works of A. A. Milne (d. 1956) will become public domain there on January 1, 2007. So, given that Winnie the Pooh is a particularly large cash cow for Disney, who wants to bet that Canada mysteriously chooses to extend their copyrights to "harmonize" (or whatever the bullshit phrase is) their copyrights with ours, or with Europe's?
Well, I was hoping for a response from someone supporting the system---someone who could actually back up the system as it stands today. Because "THE POWERFUL TRAMPLE THE WEAK" wasn't what I was looking for.
That said, remember how the ancient Greeks chose their leaders by lot from the available pool of citizens? Man, they had a lot more faith in their average citizen than we do.
I work at a helpdesk, where I frequently support users I've never heard from before and will never again. Thus, I explain the same things time and time again. For instance, when I tell them to turn off their computer and turn it back on, they will, more often than not, turn off their monitor and turn it back on. It's because they're not computer-savvy, and I shouldn't be hard on them, right?
Well, consider this: a desktop computer consists of a device that does the actual processing (the box), an output device (the monitor) and an input device (the keyboard). However, the user thinks of the monitor as "the computer". Now, think of the standard home theater setup, which people tend not to have much trouble using: a device that does the actual processing (the DVD player), an output device (the TV) and an input device (the remote control). So why does the same user, confronted with what's largely the same user experience, do something analogous to thinking of the TV as "the home theater system".
I've been trying to come up with an answer for that one, and I have yet to figure out a satisfactory one. Has anyone else run into the same problem?
I dunno; the principle for Solaris, which (to hear you tell it) lacks any package management or automatic dependency resolution, doesn't sound quite like the principle for, say, Debian, which, presumably, you could have done a single apt-get install foo for.
Can someone explain to me the function of jury selection? Why can lawyers ask questions beyond "do you know the people involved in the case?" and "do you understand the responsibilities involved in jury service?"? How does voir dire differ in any meaningful sense from jury stacking?
Man, you must be new here. Haven't you seen the standard Slashdot gun control debate?
A: Why would anyone want a gun?
B: To shoot criminals who try to attack you!
A: Wouldn't it be safer to just give them your wallet or whatever?
B: Criminals are cowards, who only attack people because they think they can get away with it. If a random potential victim could be packing, do you think they'd still try it?
A: I'd still rather not get shot.
B: Okay, fine, I'll be over to your place to take your computer, because you'd rather not fight for your property.
Does any of that sound familiar?
and Pudge for writing the code to convert 900k users, 60k stories, and 13 million comments to comply
Huh? By doing what, running them through HTMLTidy? Oh, the horror! What sort of "conversion" is required on the data, when we're just talking about changing the presentation layer?
Look, this conversion was done by A List Apart nearly two years ago. I'm not impressed. And don't give me some crap about how it's hard for Slashdot to change its code, because it's such a high-traffic site. Slashdot is miniscule compared to Wikipedia, (which runs entirely off donated hardware, to boot). If a bunch of volunteers at Wikipedia can write code which serves up validating HTML (and does a hell of a lot more complex work than Slashcode does), why did it take the well-paid proprietors of Slashdot two years to get there, when someone had already done the hard work for them?
Perhaps they're too busy posting dupes, abusing the moderation system and otherwise being petty emperors of their ever-shrinking (see above graph) realm?
At least Jon Katz has faded into well-deserved obscurity. "In our post-Katrina world, blah blah blah..."
Did it use the Perl DBI interface, like so? I don't know if DBD::CSV is smart enough to not read more of the file than it has to---I'd assume so, but I've never used it for heavy-duty data churning.
Google uses OCR for their books. It's not horrible, but it's far from perfect. If you looked at the text that the OCR output, it'd look like... well, like OCR output. But you see the page image, not the OCR'd text, and that's good enough for what it's doing.
What would be useful would be for Google to release the scanned pages of public-domain books, much like the Million Book Project does, so that they could be spiffed up properly by Distributed Proofreaders and made into high-quality ebooks distributed by Project Gutenberg.
Who knows; maybe they'll even do that.
(The reason I'm not worried about progress is that I don't believe there's been any risk of society progressing for a long time. There have been few cultural improvements since the 1700s and the main advances in technology since then have been used more to cripple subsequent advances in culture.)
Gee, I suppose an extra thirty-five to forty years of life expectancy at birth (since 1850!) isn't really an improvement in society. I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where I won't expect to die before I turn forty. Or a society where we don't tend to murder each other quite as much as we did three hundred years ago. (I don't have a copy of Freakonomics handy, but murder rates in Europe are down by something like an order of magnitude since then.)
Are you claiming that running around dying young and being murdered (c. 1700) wasn't really that bad? Or are you complaining that the radio doesn't play music that you like?
It's a common trope to whine that technology never changed basic human nature. It's so common that it's taken for granted. It's also entirely wrong. Technology is the only thing that has ever changed so-called "basic human nature".
I was totally with you up until "64.2W". Really, I was.
The folks at Wal-Mart always check my signature for purchases over ten bucks. I think it's a recent development, but over the last few weeks, it's been every single time. An edict must have come down from on high.
Eh, I sign my shit manually out of habit. Sometimes I manage not to, but I'm so damned used to it that it's automatic by now.
I hadn't really thought of the meta-moderation bit. Honest.
To be even more pedantic, what we call Maxwell's equations, in their short and memorable form, were written by Oliver Heaviside.
--grendel drago