We could stop infringing copyrights, and convince the industry that the problem has been solved.
The industry's problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. The industry's problem is that technology has made it practical for artists to produce and distribute their works independently. Don't use language that supports their scam of suppressing the latter under the guise of suppressing the former.
The fallacy here is in assuming that every employee exists in a continual "on-and-working" state from the moment she sits down at her desk. Under such an assumption, 10 seconds spent doing something else equals 10 seconds of quantifiable production loss. Problem is, most white-color jobs are task based: I need to get X done today, where X equals a presentation, a subroutine, a sales call to Duluth -- whatever. Ten seconds spent doing something else don't result in 10 seconds less of X.
That slightly modifies the argument, but makes no essential difference. Each employee spends a certain percentage of the time doing actual work and the rest in "down time" (resting, chatting, going to the can, etc). Spam does not magically increase an employee's percentage of "up time"; hence, if an employee spends (for example) 60% of the time up-and-working, the cost of spam in arkham6's argument can be multiplied by 60%.
Actually, it's worse than that, because spam selectively comes from "up time" -- that's when you check your mailbox.
The time spent typing smiley faces? There goes Luxemburg. =)
Bad analogy. Unless it is customary at your place of employment to include smiley faces in business communications, those come out of "down time", and hence cost nothing.
Even if everyone stopped buying the dubious wares advertised in spam, it wouldn't make a difference. Big-time spammers don't make their money directly from spam victims; they make it from clueless business people who buy their pitch about "Internet Marketing".
The telcom/tech industry would love the same thing, but they don't have the content. They basically have two options:
1. Let file sharing go rampant, fix it (Telcoms *COULD* stop filesharing), in return for a very exclusive/lucritive deal as distributor.
2. Let file sharing go rampant for many years, let entertainment industry suffer, watch stock plummet, buy stock and content, stop file sharing + protect content with DRM, resell at nice markup.
Or, if the big money is in selling the hardware with content as mere support, 3)Let the entertainment industry twist in the wind (but with an occasional investment infusion to keep it alive).
Adobe took a social convention (in this case the poorly concieved DMCA, but it might just as well have been copyright law itself, or some other convention) and used it to the detriment of the the society as a whole.
The fact that it is inconvenient to your argument to admit that the DMCA is an act of government does not make it a "social convention".
It's right in the article -- the amount is based on the statutory damages per junk fax ($500) multiplied by the number of junk faxes these people sent.
There's an FCC fact sheet on telemarketing that mentions that it's illegal for autodialer or recorded phones (which covers practically all telemarketing these days) to contact cell phones or any other phone for which the recipient is charged.
Harder fines, sure, but jail time? No.... In fact, I think there are many "crimes" that should not be punished by jail time (how many pot heads really deserve to be in jail, seriously?).
The problem is that the government allows the corporation to pay off the fine, without direct consequences to the people who chose to commit the crimes. The responsible individuals need to feel some personal pain for their misdeeds.
(As for your example, I don't think marijuana should be illegal to begin with, but that's a different issue.)
Doing a search on the name, I found his Web site, with a list of bullet points including (I swear I am not making this up):
No Roadside Signs -- I will not litter our highways with annoying signs. This campaign is not about name recognition; it is about issues, integrity and restoring trust in our government.
On a more serious note, you might be interested in the GigaLaw article on Biener's spam campaign.
Since I wrote it, I'll be glad to substantiate it using quotes from the article:
1: "all the usual Mom-Flag-&-Apple-Pie cliches"
NOT many months from now, people across the country will experience one ofthe great recurring features of American democracy. At shopping malls, onfactory floors, at church socials and even on our front stoops, we will beapproached by individuals who want to represent us in public office. While chancesare high that we won't know them personally, they will walk up to us, offer ahandshake and a flier and ask for our votes....
In an era of cynicism toward money in politics -- money typically spent on other unsolicited communication mediums -- Jones tried to level the playing field....
When a candidate lacks a large campaign war chest, he or she can use the Internet to provide constituents with information to better prepare them to perform their civic duty of casting educated votes....
Mom-Flag-&-Apple-Pie cliches -- Check.
2. "cynical"
Larry Purpuro, the former Republican National Committee deputy chief of staff, is founder and president of a political e-marketing firm.
cynical -- Check.
3. "condescendingly"
That choice should belong to the voter -- not to anti-spam advocates whose efforts are better focused on commercial e-mail.
don't you want to know about who's attempting to be be elected to the highest government office in the state?
Well, yes, and I'm sure that Jones' unmasking of himself as a jerk who was willing to steal from his would-be constitutents (and others) was helpful to the voters of California.
This wasn't exactly an ad for penis enlargment or girlie porn, but an example of free speech.
Can we bury this stupid "free speach" excuse once and for all?
Spam is not a free-speech issue. Spam is a property-rights issue.
We not only need more voters in the US, we need informed ones.
True, but I don't know of any acceptable way to get to that result. The only one I can think of that would work (requiring proof that the voter is at least vaguely familiar with the candidates) is irredemably poisoned by its past use as an excuse to disenfranchise blacks during the Jim Crow era.
Nope: McIntyre vs Ohio defends the right to publish anonymously. It does not address any of the time-place-and-manner or property-rights issues which are applicable to spam (e.g. it doesn't say that you can spray paint your message on other people's walls).
It makes sense that 1)the individuals who acutally engage in the illegal publication of copyrighted files should be the ones -- the only ones -- punished, and that 2)the punishment should be commesurate with the crime (for a typical bootlegger who has provided a few dozen illegal copies to random downloaders, a fine of US$(a few hundred) would be about right).
Both attempts to control technology in general and the draconian NET act penalties should be rejected in favor of this sort of rational and just approach.
Spam is an offense against Allah. Spread the word.
It's crossed my mind that one of the more effective tactics might be to seed a spamware site with a Trojan that sends (for example) the Rev. Franklin Graham's thoughts on Islam to random *@*.sa addresses....
Obviously, military top secret stuff is different; though it certainly need not be based on proprietary technology -- nothing prevents the military from modifying OSS / FS software and then keeping those modifications secret within the division.
It's been a basic principle (Kerchoff's principle, to be precise) of cryptography for over a century that secrecy should reside purely in the keys, not in the algorithms. Dependence on secret modifications is a bad idea -- if the mods weaken security, the only way to find out is the hard way.
"Copyright Trial Continues in Bookzap Flap: Books Downloaded Directly into Brain: Who Owns Them?"
--headline seen Universe Today in And The Sky Full Of Stars
The advantages of a solid-state device over a hard-drive jukebox or MP3/CD player are: 1)It's immune to skipping (even with buffering, this happens occasionally with my RioVolt), 2)It uses less power and thus has a longer battery life, and 3)It's smaller.
My ideal would be a combination of a CD reader unit that could transfer files to a portable solid-state unit (so that you could carry lots of material and access it all without a computer, while preserving the solid-state advantages). However, the industry would probably crap it up with Digital Restriction Management.
Slashdot Mirror
The industry's problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. The industry's problem is that technology has made it practical for artists to produce and distribute their works independently. Don't use language that supports their scam of suppressing the latter under the guise of suppressing the former.
That slightly modifies the argument, but makes no essential difference. Each employee spends a certain percentage of the time doing actual work and the rest in "down time" (resting, chatting, going to the can, etc). Spam does not magically increase an employee's percentage of "up time"; hence, if an employee spends (for example) 60% of the time up-and-working, the cost of spam in arkham6's argument can be multiplied by 60%.
Actually, it's worse than that, because spam selectively comes from "up time" -- that's when you check your mailbox.
The time spent typing smiley faces? There goes Luxemburg. =)
Bad analogy. Unless it is customary at your place of employment to include smiley faces in business communications, those come out of "down time", and hence cost nothing.
Even if everyone stopped buying the dubious wares advertised in spam, it wouldn't make a difference. Big-time spammers don't make their money directly from spam victims; they make it from clueless business people who buy their pitch about "Internet Marketing".
1. Let file sharing go rampant, fix it (Telcoms *COULD* stop filesharing), in return for a very exclusive/lucritive deal as distributor.
2. Let file sharing go rampant for many years, let entertainment industry suffer, watch stock plummet, buy stock and content, stop file sharing + protect content with DRM, resell at nice markup.
Or, if the big money is in selling the hardware with content as mere support, 3)Let the entertainment industry twist in the wind (but with an occasional investment infusion to keep it alive).
Write 500 times:
The fact that it is inconvenient to your argument to admit that the DMCA is an act of government does not make it a "social convention".
You don't need to fill out our silly forms.
"All you need to do is count how many people live here."
All we need to do is count how many people live here.
"Just move along."
I'll just move along.
Obviously, nobody expects to actually get this money out of them -- the point is to drive them out of their illegal business.
Of course not. Nobody needs more than 640K.
It's right in the article -- the amount is based on the statutory damages per junk fax ($500) multiplied by the number of junk faxes these people sent.
There's an FCC fact sheet on telemarketing that mentions that it's illegal for autodialer or recorded phones (which covers practically all telemarketing these days) to contact cell phones or any other phone for which the recipient is charged.
Yes, and telemarketing calls to cell phones are... (wait for it)... illegal.
The problem is that the government allows the corporation to pay off the fine, without direct consequences to the people who chose to commit the crimes. The responsible individuals need to feel some personal pain for their misdeeds.
(As for your example, I don't think marijuana should be illegal to begin with, but that's a different issue.)
Well, yes, and I'm sure that Jones' unmasking of himself as a jerk who was willing to steal from his would-be constitutents (and others) was helpful to the voters of California.
This wasn't exactly an ad for penis enlargment or girlie porn, but an example of free speech.
Can we bury this stupid "free speach" excuse once and for all?
Spam is not a free-speech issue. Spam is a property-rights issue.
We not only need more voters in the US, we need informed ones.
True, but I don't know of any acceptable way to get to that result. The only one I can think of that would work (requiring proof that the voter is at least vaguely familiar with the candidates) is irredemably poisoned by its past use as an excuse to disenfranchise blacks during the Jim Crow era.
Nope: McIntyre vs Ohio defends the right to publish anonymously. It does not address any of the time-place-and-manner or property-rights issues which are applicable to spam (e.g. it doesn't say that you can spray paint your message on other people's walls).
Q: What happens when a politician takes Viagra?
A: He gets taller.
Both attempts to control technology in general and the draconian NET act penalties should be rejected in favor of this sort of rational and just approach.
It's crossed my mind that one of the more effective tactics might be to seed a spamware site with a Trojan that sends (for example) the Rev. Franklin Graham's thoughts on Islam to random *@*.sa addresses....
It's been a basic principle (Kerchoff's principle, to be precise) of cryptography for over a century that secrecy should reside purely in the keys, not in the algorithms. Dependence on secret modifications is a bad idea -- if the mods weaken security, the only way to find out is the hard way.
"Copyright Trial Continues in Bookzap Flap: Books Downloaded Directly into Brain: Who Owns Them?" --headline seen Universe Today in And The Sky Full Of Stars
The advantages of a solid-state device over a hard-drive jukebox or MP3/CD player are: 1)It's immune to skipping (even with buffering, this happens occasionally with my RioVolt), 2)It uses less power and thus has a longer battery life, and 3)It's smaller.
My ideal would be a combination of a CD reader unit that could transfer files to a portable solid-state unit (so that you could carry lots of material and access it all without a computer, while preserving the solid-state advantages). However, the industry would probably crap it up with Digital Restriction Management.
"I don't see why people make such a big deal out of Hamlet -- it's nothing but a lot of quotations strung together."
Well, he told you he was of that stripe of political trolldom right up front, by using the shibboleth "US hegemony" in the very first sentence.