Same here. I've been frequenting Usenet since late 1993, and used to spend a fair bit of time wandering alt.sex.*, and not once have I ever seen any kiddie porn.
What it sounds like to me is the ISPs hunting for an excuse to NOT carry the newsgropes, er, groups that consume the most bandwidth (this is hardly new, they've been trying to dump alt.binaries.* since forever), plus official kneejerking based on rumour and perception rather than actuality.
And what happens when you discover that the "exploited" kid is some pre-teen in Belize, who has discovered this is a much better way to make money than working in the fields?
What if that's the cultural norm there? Is it your place to change it??
(For the record, I know someone who lived in Belize for a while, and acto him this is actually how things are there. If you look like you've got money, you have to beat off the pre-teen girls with a broomstick.)
And what qualifies as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"?? What do you call that cute baby picture of the toddler who, after the nature of toddlers, has just discovered his penis??
(If I were the kid's parent, I'd call it blackmail materials for when he's a teenager, but that's just me:)
It occurs to me to wonder if there are more people working in the missing and exploited children "prevention" industry, than there are actual missing and exploited children.
Even works in the public domain require that *someone* reprints and distributes them, which usually means consumers are still paying for them. (Not everything is suitable for free digital distribution, and people LIKE having printed books and audio CDs and such.)
So... just because your work falls out of copyright DOESN'T mean you can never again get paid for it. Make your own distribution channel the most efficient and the most desirable at the golden consumer price point, and you can continue selling it -- either forever or until the public loses interest, whichever comes first. Shakespeare and Beethoven would still be making a living under this scheme.
That's a very good point, and AFAICR new to the discussion. What we can put our hands on, we feel we own; what we can only think about, we want to propagate. Both are positive species-survival traits (one keeps food in the larder, the other passes along culture and information).
As you say, laws generally reflect this, except for copyright law, which is increasingly at odds with our instincts.
And given those dates, it looks to me like this is meant to pull stuff back out of the public domain, as well as to prevent pretty much ALL recordings (there being none worth noting before that) from ever falling into public domain.
Doesn't copyright law itself say that its ultimate purpose is to "enrich the public domain"?? Methinks the media corps have misread that last part.
Similarly, my first thought was that musicians are in a sort of service industry, which means you earn what you earn on the spot, not for breathing after the fact.
As others note, royalties don't generally go to the musician anyway.
Yeah, I keep an eye out for unloved-looking dishes... the one I got a while back came off Freecycle.
The former owners had a whole pile of such gleanings to give away... and I'm like "I need this, and I need this, and I've been looking for one of this, and this, and this..." and I hauled away a whole trailerload of Useful Stuff (at least to me!) They must have thought I was mad.:)
Exactly my own sentiments. I don't mind giving someone a hand up, and maybe even give them a shovel if I have a spare, but if they need a ditch it's not my job to dig it, nor should my shovels be forcibly TAKEN from me to dig ditches for someone else. ========
Rez's quick guide to the American political parties:
Democrat: Give us all your shovels, so we can dig those po'folks ditches, whether they need 'em or not.
Republican: Here's a shovel. Go dig your own damn ditch.
Libertarian: I ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Green: You ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Peace and Freedom: Hey man, spade me up a new patch for my pot.
American Independent: Covet not thy neighbour's shovel, and what is this 'ditch' of which thou speaks?
Or use existing cell phone towers, which is what my provider does. (I have fixed wireless here in SoCal -- no other options here.) I vaguely recall he said you could get into the business for no more than a few grand -- the base station is about $3k and the individual receiver radios are about $200. (Motorola)
Regardless, I think you're right -- they may well be better off DIY'ing than trying to find a suitable provider.
I have this type of fixed wireless here in SoCal -- it was my ONLY available broadband option. I'm about 15 miles from the tower. It does need to be line of sight, but is generally not affected by weather (tho I've noticed some wobbly connections during rainstorms). I get 1.5MBit for $35/month, with no caps other than "please don't upload full-blast all day every day". It's available up to 5.7Mbit, at a suitably higher fee.
My provider guy says Motorola are the only good radios for the purpose; all the rest generate more complaints than customers.
Yep, that's the part I referred to. What I wanted to know is whether one could get away with copying the existing parts of the handwriting samples and using those as a basis for a new font. Would that be fair use, or prohibited as copyright infringement??
There are a number of prolific type designers.. "Tommy from Escondido" was the first one I ever encountered. As someone else points out, their typefaces are often best for headline or novelty use, and not necessarily suited for large swaths of text, a far more difficult proposition.
But I still enjoy these creative fonts, and have collected about 13,000 of 'em:)
I found myself thinking that several of these need to be made into handwriting fonts:)
Side note: what's the copyright issue on that? I know you can duplicate a font so long as you do it from scratch (no scanned letters/copy-and-paste) and give it a new name, but what about making a font from handwriting samples? obviously the easy method there is to scan, copy, and paste each letter, but since this is a small sample of something that is not an existing font, and since much of it would still need to be created from scratch, would using a scan of someone's handwriting be fair use??
As to Eduardo, my first thought was akin to yours, but my next was that this is someone for whom English is at best a second language, and he is not real comfortable writing in English, even tho the alphabet is the same as whatever he's used to (presumably a Romance language, from his name).
That's probably pretty much how it would go. People in a situation they already *perceive* as "risky" are much more prone to panic, and panic begets violence. And then we'd have even tighter lockdowns, despite that the lockdown itself (in the form of zap-bracelets) is the cause of the violence officials fear.
The old line about having "nothing to fear but fear itself" is meaningful in more ways than the obvious.
While what you say is correct... in the current climate of eroding personal rights and increasingly invasive government, I think discussion of how gov't agencies COULD get out of hand is a useful exercise, in that it gets people thinking about the "What if" aspects, and how both current and potential gov't (mis)behaviour can impact their everyday lives. What could we do if the situation came to pass? How would it be implemented? how much will it cost us in tax dollars? what alternatives would we have? Better yet, how could we prevent it? In California, sometimes the best way to halt stupid legislative ideas is to show the costs (including failure of revenue) to the Appropriations Committee.
Far from being mental masturbation, this is good exercise for sheeple not accustomed to thinking in terms of how good technologies can become bad policies. And f protest rises against even a nonexistent erosion of our rights, it serves as notice to those we elect and appoint that this is not acceptable to the Citizenry, and if they do have any such thoughts, they'd best rethink 'em.
If you put the collar band on young enough, it will soon become non-removeable, as the baby's head grows past the dimensions of its adult neck. Think of it as obesity prevention -- if your neck gets too fat, you'll strangle.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. I've been frequenting Usenet since late 1993, and used to spend a fair bit of time wandering alt.sex.*, and not once have I ever seen any kiddie porn.
What it sounds like to me is the ISPs hunting for an excuse to NOT carry the newsgropes, er, groups that consume the most bandwidth (this is hardly new, they've been trying to dump alt.binaries.* since forever), plus official kneejerking based on rumour and perception rather than actuality.
And what happens when you discover that the "exploited" kid is some pre-teen in Belize, who has discovered this is a much better way to make money than working in the fields?
What if that's the cultural norm there? Is it your place to change it??
(For the record, I know someone who lived in Belize for a while, and acto him this is actually how things are there. If you look like you've got money, you have to beat off the pre-teen girls with a broomstick.)
And what qualifies as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"?? What do you call that cute baby picture of the toddler who, after the nature of toddlers, has just discovered his penis??
(If I were the kid's parent, I'd call it blackmail materials for when he's a teenager, but that's just me :)
It occurs to me to wonder if there are more people working in the missing and exploited children "prevention" industry, than there are actual missing and exploited children.
and my next thought was, what stops them from revising it to read...
Even works in the public domain require that *someone* reprints and distributes them, which usually means consumers are still paying for them. (Not everything is suitable for free digital distribution, and people LIKE having printed books and audio CDs and such.)
So... just because your work falls out of copyright DOESN'T mean you can never again get paid for it. Make your own distribution channel the most efficient and the most desirable at the golden consumer price point, and you can continue selling it -- either forever or until the public loses interest, whichever comes first. Shakespeare and Beethoven would still be making a living under this scheme.
That's a very good point, and AFAICR new to the discussion. What we can put our hands on, we feel we own; what we can only think about, we want to propagate. Both are positive species-survival traits (one keeps food in the larder, the other passes along culture and information).
As you say, laws generally reflect this, except for copyright law, which is increasingly at odds with our instincts.
And given those dates, it looks to me like this is meant to pull stuff back out of the public domain, as well as to prevent pretty much ALL recordings (there being none worth noting before that) from ever falling into public domain.
Doesn't copyright law itself say that its ultimate purpose is to "enrich the public domain"?? Methinks the media corps have misread that last part.
Similarly, my first thought was that musicians are in a sort of service industry, which means you earn what you earn on the spot, not for breathing after the fact.
As others note, royalties don't generally go to the musician anyway.
Yeah, I keep an eye out for unloved-looking dishes... the one I got a while back came off Freecycle.
The former owners had a whole pile of such gleanings to give away... and I'm like "I need this, and I need this, and I've been looking for one of this, and this, and this..." and I hauled away a whole trailerload of Useful Stuff (at least to me!) They must have thought I was mad. :)
It appears to be a joke. The link goes to McCain Food Services. The candidate isn't the only person by that name, ya know.
Exactly my own sentiments. I don't mind giving someone a hand up, and maybe even give them a shovel if I have a spare, but if they need a ditch it's not my job to dig it, nor should my shovels be forcibly TAKEN from me to dig ditches for someone else.
========
Rez's quick guide to the American political parties:
Democrat: Give us all your shovels, so we can dig those po'folks ditches, whether they need 'em or not.
Republican: Here's a shovel. Go dig your own damn ditch.
Libertarian: I ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Green: You ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Peace and Freedom: Hey man, spade me up a new patch for my pot.
American Independent: Covet not thy neighbour's shovel, and what is this 'ditch' of which thou speaks?
Did that for my dogs for shade. Works great. Wish I could find 5 or 6 more of 'em!!
Or use existing cell phone towers, which is what my provider does. (I have fixed wireless here in SoCal -- no other options here.) I vaguely recall he said you could get into the business for no more than a few grand -- the base station is about $3k and the individual receiver radios are about $200. (Motorola)
Regardless, I think you're right -- they may well be better off DIY'ing than trying to find a suitable provider.
I have this type of fixed wireless here in SoCal -- it was my ONLY available broadband option. I'm about 15 miles from the tower. It does need to be line of sight, but is generally not affected by weather (tho I've noticed some wobbly connections during rainstorms). I get 1.5MBit for $35/month, with no caps other than "please don't upload full-blast all day every day". It's available up to 5.7Mbit, at a suitably higher fee.
My provider guy says Motorola are the only good radios for the purpose; all the rest generate more complaints than customers.
Yep, that's the part I referred to. What I wanted to know is whether one could get away with copying the existing parts of the handwriting samples and using those as a basis for a new font. Would that be fair use, or prohibited as copyright infringement??
There are a number of prolific type designers .. "Tommy from Escondido" was the first one I ever encountered. As someone else points out, their typefaces are often best for headline or novelty use, and not necessarily suited for large swaths of text, a far more difficult proposition.
But I still enjoy these creative fonts, and have collected about 13,000 of 'em :)
I found myself thinking that several of these need to be made into handwriting fonts :)
Side note: what's the copyright issue on that? I know you can duplicate a font so long as you do it from scratch (no scanned letters/copy-and-paste) and give it a new name, but what about making a font from handwriting samples? obviously the easy method there is to scan, copy, and paste each letter, but since this is a small sample of something that is not an existing font, and since much of it would still need to be created from scratch, would using a scan of someone's handwriting be fair use??
As to Eduardo, my first thought was akin to yours, but my next was that this is someone for whom English is at best a second language, and he is not real comfortable writing in English, even tho the alphabet is the same as whatever he's used to (presumably a Romance language, from his name).
That's probably pretty much how it would go. People in a situation they already *perceive* as "risky" are much more prone to panic, and panic begets violence. And then we'd have even tighter lockdowns, despite that the lockdown itself (in the form of zap-bracelets) is the cause of the violence officials fear.
The old line about having "nothing to fear but fear itself" is meaningful in more ways than the obvious.
While what you say is correct... in the current climate of eroding personal rights and increasingly invasive government, I think discussion of how gov't agencies COULD get out of hand is a useful exercise, in that it gets people thinking about the "What if" aspects, and how both current and potential gov't (mis)behaviour can impact their everyday lives. What could we do if the situation came to pass? How would it be implemented? how much will it cost us in tax dollars? what alternatives would we have? Better yet, how could we prevent it? In California, sometimes the best way to halt stupid legislative ideas is to show the costs (including failure of revenue) to the Appropriations Committee.
Far from being mental masturbation, this is good exercise for sheeple not accustomed to thinking in terms of how good technologies can become bad policies. And f protest rises against even a nonexistent erosion of our rights, it serves as notice to those we elect and appoint that this is not acceptable to the Citizenry, and if they do have any such thoughts, they'd best rethink 'em.
Heh.. actually, you'd need to throw a bucket of water over 'em. A dog's thick coat can be enough to insulate it from the shock, even in water.
Crap, I'd hate to be the janitorial crew after the shakedown flight :)
That's a thought... in which case, who needs expensive electronic zappers, when cheap mechanical handcuffs will do??
Well, of course it depends on whether you're doing it for entertainment, or for some darker purpose... ;)
Yep... so explain to me again how this will stop anyone from executing their nefarious plans??
And no need to prepare; just pull out your hanky, or get some toilet paper from the commode, and shove it under the contacts.
If you put the collar band on young enough, it will soon become non-removeable, as the baby's head grows past the dimensions of its adult neck. Think of it as obesity prevention -- if your neck gets too fat, you'll strangle.