Eventually, somebody would call their bluff (cracking all the acutal security codes, being unable to account for one that's supposed to be there, and bootleg it anyway). In that case, the secret would be out when that person didn't get caught.
There is absolutely no reason Hollywood couldn't attach a serial number to every digital movie or braodcast sold and downloaded on the web. Sure, some would crack the serial number and remove it, but the vast majority of people are not inclined to give away things they themselves had to pay for, especially if there is some risk (however remote) of their name staying attached to the illegal copies.
They can develop a copy-identification system along these lines with three separate elements, and then announce that it has four.
They'll even be telling the truth -- FUD (I've filed off three serial numbers... were they bluffing about the fourth one?) becomes an additional element.
The problem is that the boundary between legal fair use and illegal bootlegging is too fuzzy. The solution is to clarify the boundary somewhat (it's probably impossible to make it totally clear, but there's plenty of room for improvement) by clearly listing some areas which are definitely within the scope of fair use. If this seems too unbalanced, it's easy enough to create a corresponding list of areas which are definitely within the scope of bootlegging (e.g. making copies of an entire copyrighted work or large fraction thereof available to the general public without permission).
Families deserve to have options to watch movies on the Net, legally, at their command."
Sorry, but, no, they don't "deserve" any such thing. Such a service may or may not be offered; if it is offered, it may or may not survive in the marketplace. If either of the above decisions turns out to be "not", then people will just have to deal with its absence.
KKK members can't run around saying that all niggers should be tortured and killed.
In fact, they can, unless there exists an imminent danger that the rhetoric will be translated into lawless action. That's where the law draws the line between protected trash-talking and incitement to riot.
Earth's magnetic field rises, falls, and reverses quite often (on a geological timescale). This makes it unlikely that it's terribly critical for the continued existence of life, since the periods of near-zero field are long (on the timescale of human, to say nothing of other critters', generations).
British music sales rose by 5% thanks to the success of artists such as Robbie Williams and Dido.
This can be explained by the fact that....
1. You can't access the Internet in Great Britain.
2. Bootlegging music files is Simply Not Done in Britain.
3. Robbie Williams and Dido (whoever they are) are less crapulent than the "musicians" the recording industry foists off on the American market.
Does anybody know of any GOOD front mount USB devices for a 5.25" bay? I DO NOT WANT one that includes a 5.25" to 3.5" adaptor, I have ENOUGH 3.5" bays in my full tower case, I just want to be able to plug in massive USB devices to the front of my computer. . ..
Hmmm... haven't had any luck on a quick search. If all else fails, I suppose you could nest a 3.5" USB device in the 5.25" one.
Going over those links, I found an example (under "Major Issues") of the basic fallacy underlying RIAA's position:
Divestiture: Removing state investments, usually pension funds for retired state workers, from entertainment companies producing music with what some politicians consider "objectionable" lyrics.
This simply is not a freedom of speech issue, or a freedom issue of any sort. The only issue that exists here at all is one of fiduciary responsibility of the state governments to the retired state workers.
This may seem like a nitpick, but it isn't. It goes to the heart of RIAA's bogus notion that it has a "right" to make a profit. Well, no it doesn't, and neither does anybody else, because no such "right" exists. (They do, of course, have the right to attempt to make a profit and the right to publish. Both of those are genuine rights, which are unfortunately undermined by association with the counterfeit "right" to a profit.)
None of this is about piracy. Media companies want to eventually be able to charge us every time we want to listen to anything copyrighted by them.
They also want to make it illegal to buy a device that can play non-secure content and to control the tools required to create secure content -- instant publishing monopoly.
Technology firms did not want to testify in the hearing, did not offer input while the bill was being drafted, and have offered plenty of criticism but little helpful suggestions since, a Hollings aide said.
Why, I offered several helpful suggestions in my letters to my senators:
I suggested that protections for fair use rights be written into the bill (appending a copy of the Digital Consumer Bill of Rights as a proposed model), and that the penalties for infringing those rights be made equivalent to those for copyright violation.
I suggested that, to insure that the new standard did not unduly impair independent publishing, the requirements for the final standard would have to include a complete lack of patent, copyright, or trade secret encumbrances.
I think I forgot to suggest that CPR teams be dispatched to watch Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, and Bill Gates before the new version of the bill was released for public comment. I can only hope that one of the staffers realized this necessity in time.
most of the articles I've seen about it have focused on the opposition to the bill rather than the 'new age of Broadband' Disney would like us to think they're trying to usher in
One of my key arguments is to attack the rationale for this ridiculous bill on its most fundamental level -- the public just isn't interested in a "new age of broadband"
It would be technically feasable to rewire the telephone system so that it could transmit high-fidelity music. It hasn't happened because most people are satisfied if they can recognize words and voices. They certainly aren't willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for some newfangled "high-fidelity telephone".
The same is true of media. The government should just forget the whole notion of pushing a new digital TV standard -- if it happens on its own, fine; if not, so what?
"They seem satisfied to try to attack it in the press rather than trying to make it work," said Sen. Hollings spokesman Andy Davis.
I'm flashing back to six months ago, when the Taliban spokesmen wailed that the Americans were satisfied to launch a military attack rather than try to negotiate and reveal their intel sources, er, show the evidence against bin Laden.
Many states require only "one-party" consent (which means that you may unilaterally record a conversation). For interstate calls, the federal law (which is also "one-party" consent) applies.
This issue came up in the Linda Tripp saga -- since her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky crossed a state line (Maryland to DC), she was able to legally record them.
Of course they wouldn't have legitimate authorization. That's why I used the term "slamming", which refers specifically to switching a victim's long-distance service by this sort of trickery.
I have a friend with such a business, employing about 20 telemarketers.
Your disreputable social circle isn't my concern.
How are these legitimate businesses (not scams, traps, overly-persistant) supposed to contact their customers if they can't call.
I've heard of these things called "advertisements" and "Web pages". These bleeding-edge innovations should be covered on/. any day now.
there are some very-legitimate businesses out there who do a good job of targeting their audience It's far too expensive to mail out mailers (and that wastes trees anyway).
One or the other. Either they narrowly target their audience (in which case it isn't unduly expensive to use the mail) or they blast it out randomly (in which case it's proper to lump them in with the general mass of telephone pests).
If they are trying to scam you, hang up...don't put up this call blocking crap that only serves to reduce competition in the marketplace and hurt many small businesses who are not out to scam you, but make an honest buck.
As long as I am paying for my phone line, I'll put whatever "call blocking crap" I please on it. Any business of whatever size that tries to slip through it shall be considered to be attempting to scam me for a dishonest buck.
The AI should also throw out bones form time to time, to keep the marketeer on the hook ("Excellent!" "I can see a need for this in our organization, RIGHT NOW!").
Er, no, and that's the problem with this suggestion. If the AI says anything that can be plausibly represented as consent, the telemarketer can use the "bone" on you (e.g. "slam" your long-distance service to the carrier he's selling).
Pity -- your idea sounds like it would have great entertainment value.
How does such a law do what the RIAA/MPAA want without preventing such small ensembles or people making home movies/videoing their kid's graduation/etc. from making legitimate copies of their own content?
Er, preventing independent media publication is what the RIAA/MPAA want.
It's not clear that the cures will be widely available
What's your point? Obviously, a limited supply is better than no supply.
Meanwhile, most of the disease in this country is self-inflicted. Heart disease, lung cancer, alcoholism, obesity. A few public policy initiatives would do much more for public health than any stem cells would.
WTF does a decision to eat less, excersize more, not smoke, and not drink to excess have to do with "public policy"? Dragging that notion into the argument undercuts the whole point of personal responsibility.
There's a corporate power-play going on here with regards to the information in these stem cells.
What information? Is there some sort of secret message written into DNA by aliens?
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it's a bit of social engineering.
They can develop a copy-identification system along these lines with three separate elements, and then announce that it has four.
They'll even be telling the truth -- FUD (I've filed off three serial numbers... were they bluffing about the fourth one?) becomes an additional element.
The problem is that the boundary between legal fair use and illegal bootlegging is too fuzzy. The solution is to clarify the boundary somewhat (it's probably impossible to make it totally clear, but there's plenty of room for improvement) by clearly listing some areas which are definitely within the scope of fair use. If this seems too unbalanced, it's easy enough to create a corresponding list of areas which are definitely within the scope of bootlegging (e.g. making copies of an entire copyrighted work or large fraction thereof available to the general public without permission).
Sorry, but, no, they don't "deserve" any such thing. Such a service may or may not be offered; if it is offered, it may or may not survive in the marketplace. If either of the above decisions turns out to be "not", then people will just have to deal with its absence.
"Rosen Asks Government To Reduce Anti-Terrorism Priority"
Gates, Clinton -- is this a common trait among men named "Bill"?
Yeah, and you can run it through Photoshop to make it indistinguishable from a black square. Obviously, we need to ban black squares.
In fact, they can, unless there exists an imminent danger that the rhetoric will be translated into lawless action. That's where the law draws the line between protected trash-talking and incitement to riot.
Earth's magnetic field rises, falls, and reverses quite often (on a geological timescale). This makes it unlikely that it's terribly critical for the continued existence of life, since the periods of near-zero field are long (on the timescale of human, to say nothing of other critters', generations).
Because the government killed off the station wagon with CAFE regulations. Next question?
Hmmm... haven't had any luck on a quick search. If all else fails, I suppose you could nest a 3.5" USB device in the 5.25" one.
This may seem like a nitpick, but it isn't. It goes to the heart of RIAA's bogus notion that it has a "right" to make a profit. Well, no it doesn't, and neither does anybody else, because no such "right" exists. (They do, of course, have the right to attempt to make a profit and the right to publish. Both of those are genuine rights, which are unfortunately undermined by association with the counterfeit "right" to a profit.)
When?
They also want to make it illegal to buy a device that can play non-secure content and to control the tools required to create secure content -- instant publishing monopoly.
Why, I offered several helpful suggestions in my letters to my senators:
I suggested that protections for fair use rights be written into the bill (appending a copy of the Digital Consumer Bill of Rights as a proposed model), and that the penalties for infringing those rights be made equivalent to those for copyright violation.
I suggested that, to insure that the new standard did not unduly impair independent publishing, the requirements for the final standard would have to include a complete lack of patent, copyright, or trade secret encumbrances.
I think I forgot to suggest that CPR teams be dispatched to watch Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, and Bill Gates before the new version of the bill was released for public comment. I can only hope that one of the staffers realized this necessity in time.
One of my key arguments is to attack the rationale for this ridiculous bill on its most fundamental level -- the public just isn't interested in a "new age of broadband"
It would be technically feasable to rewire the telephone system so that it could transmit high-fidelity music. It hasn't happened because most people are satisfied if they can recognize words and voices. They certainly aren't willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for some newfangled "high-fidelity telephone".
The same is true of media. The government should just forget the whole notion of pushing a new digital TV standard -- if it happens on its own, fine; if not, so what?
I'm flashing back to six months ago, when the Taliban spokesmen wailed that the Americans were satisfied to launch a military attack rather than try to negotiate and reveal their intel sources, er, show the evidence against bin Laden.
This issue came up in the Linda Tripp saga -- since her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky crossed a state line (Maryland to DC), she was able to legally record them.
Of course they wouldn't have legitimate authorization. That's why I used the term "slamming", which refers specifically to switching a victim's long-distance service by this sort of trickery.
Your disreputable social circle isn't my concern.
How are these legitimate businesses (not scams, traps, overly-persistant) supposed to contact their customers if they can't call.
I've heard of these things called "advertisements" and "Web pages". These bleeding-edge innovations should be covered on /. any day now.
there are some very-legitimate businesses out there who do a good job of targeting their audience
It's far too expensive to mail out mailers (and that wastes trees anyway).
One or the other. Either they narrowly target their audience (in which case it isn't unduly expensive to use the mail) or they blast it out randomly (in which case it's proper to lump them in with the general mass of telephone pests).
If they are trying to scam you, hang up...don't put up this call blocking crap that only serves to reduce competition in the marketplace and hurt many small businesses who are not out to scam you, but make an honest buck.
As long as I am paying for my phone line, I'll put whatever "call blocking crap" I please on it. Any business of whatever size that tries to slip through it shall be considered to be attempting to scam me for a dishonest buck.
Er, no, and that's the problem with this suggestion. If the AI says anything that can be plausibly represented as consent, the telemarketer can use the "bone" on you (e.g. "slam" your long-distance service to the carrier he's selling).
Pity -- your idea sounds like it would have great entertainment value.
Let them make a living doing something more respectable, such as selling crack or turning tricks.
Er, preventing independent media publication is what the RIAA/MPAA want.
What's your point? Obviously, a limited supply is better than no supply.
Meanwhile, most of the disease in this country is self-inflicted. Heart disease, lung cancer, alcoholism, obesity. A few public policy initiatives would do much more for public health than any stem cells would.
WTF does a decision to eat less, excersize more, not smoke, and not drink to excess have to do with "public policy"? Dragging that notion into the argument undercuts the whole point of personal responsibility.
There's a corporate power-play going on here with regards to the information in these stem cells.
What information? Is there some sort of secret message written into DNA by aliens?
Public policy is being ignored.
Irrelevancies should be ignored.