Likely your activities have helped make judges more aware of this, too, so they're more likely to go "Hey, wait a minute, since when is this legal? No way!" instead of just going along with whatever the RIAA wants.
I did like this judge effectively saying, "Read the law, dumbasses":)
Yep. All one need do is observe behaviour at any grade school, where there is effectively no privacy and everyone knows everyone else's business (as minimal as that is at the grade-school level). Tribalism and uniformity are, if anything, strongly enhanced by this "transparency" since everyone can SEE which folks are "not of our tribe" (for reasons that would go unnoticed were they private) and therefore should be done away with. And this has nothing to do with behaviour that adults enforce; kids do it all by themselves. Watch any unsupervised playground group for a while, to see it in action.
As to another poster who hopes that multiple minorities would trump the tyranny of the majority -- that's never worked before, why would it work now?? if anything, the various fringe groups consider one another even more the Enemy!
As I've said over and over: Privacy is personhood; the assurance that you matter as an individual. This is why I content that privacy, no matter how small, is the single most important factor in a child's normal development.
But longhouse dwellers usually had an individual private place, away from the village, that no one else knew of (nor would be welcome there).
You can watch the same behaviour with little kids who share a room: each child exhibits a strong need for a place, no matter how minimal, that is their OWN and is free from snooping by siblings, parents, or anyone else. Privacy is personhood; the concept that you matter as an individual, and not solely as a member of the transparent group.
I've often said that the most important thing you can give your kids is privacy -- a space of their own (however minimal), so they feel that they are a person, not an object.
"One might hope that social norms would change to become more accepting - that is, that all behaviors that are not illegal or unethical would also not be shameful."
I think it would work the other way around -- all behaviours you don't want aired in public would automatically become shameful.
I vaguely recall that in Puritan society, the village proctor could walk into your house and inspect your life any time he pleased. And in that society, everything not officially sanctioned was shameful. I think the two concepts go hand in hand.
As I suggest elsewhere, SoundExchange needs competition that could do a similar blanket license and royalty, without every artist and broadcaster needing an individual agreement. How about if some trustworthy outfit like CDBaby got into the act? they're already set up to pay artists; adding royalties shouldn't be that difficult.
Per a knowledgeable explanation someone posted last time this went around, royalties are collected by SoundExchange, UNLESS the artist/composer has an explicit agreement to the contrary *with each and every broadcaster* for *each and every song*. Since that's not practical (who's going to chase down thousands of artists, most of whom move around like spring flies?), we really only have SoundExchange in the royalty-collecting business. And since most artists don't even know about it, most never collect their royalties.
But (and I've suggested this before) what if some other outfit started offering a similar blanket royalty contract, where broadcasters would only need to deal with this one entity. CDBaby is already set up to pay indie artists for CD sales; it wouldn't be that much more difficult to set up a royalty contract that these same indie artists could take advantage of. Voila, SoundExchange is out of the loop, and broadcasters still don't have to chase down and get individual contracts from thousands of artists. And even if CDBaby kept half of what they collect (just as they do with CD sales) the artists would still come out well ahead of what they get from SoundExchange.
And as a side benefit, it would encourage artists to move away from the RIAA labels and business model.
Bingo. "If you have nothing to hide, show us your papers, Komrade!" isn't just about privacy. It's about the paranoia of those who want to know about everything you do. After all, what they don't know about MIGHT be plotting to overthrow THEM.
With privacy, you are a person. Without it, you are a nonperson.
This is why I insist that of all the things you can give your kids, the single most important gift is privacy -- the assurance that he is a person, capable of achieving trust, not an object that can never be trusted.
Thus privacy enhances moral behaviour, rather than detracting from it: Personhood engenders responsibility. Without personhood, why should anyone give a fuck about the consequences of their actions? Look at the behaviour of kids with overbearing parents -- they are the MOST likely to rebel. Adults are just older kids.
That's an excellent point. Laws need to be written so they work not only when the Good Guys are in power, but ALSO WHEN THE BAD GUYS ARE IN POWER.
Because in an elected system, sooner or later, the Opposition (whichever side you feel that is) gets a turn in the driver's seat. Do you really want THEM deciding HOW to apply a law that has potential for abuse?
The earliest quote that I've seen on the subject is from several hundred years previous. I expect there is some similar thought expressed in the early Greek and Roman writings. Anyway, it's clear that thinking men have grokked the concept for a long time, probably for since there first existed ANY government with sufficient power to coerce its citizens.
If it gets that far... well, remember the military is made up of citizens too, ALL of whom have been civilians in the past. And soldiers ARE capable of deciding not to follow illegal orders. Yeah, it's hard for any such group to buck orders, but if we citizens support the military so the average grunt views civilians as his FRIENDS, not as The Enemy -- he's a lot more likely to refuse to fire on a citizen militia.
"It is not enough to simply fight when the abuse happens, but we must also fight the possible abuse that can occur."...and to paraphrase the usual intent of blanket surveillance...
"It is not enough to simply catch criminals, but we must also catch the possible crimes that can occur."
There is a peculiarly ugly symmetry at work here.
It appears that the more the gov't seeks to prevent "possible crimes", the more vigilantly We The People must seek to prevent abuse.
Or something like those new vertical fans they're now selling for household use. In fact he might be able to mount 3 or 4 of those side by side without going beyond the vehicle's wheelbase width... the engineering might get more complex but the added power and maneuverability might be worth it.
Also would probably have less negative effect from headwinds.
An AC informs us, "That is so funny! Except that the original song was done by 'Jan & Dean,' not the 'Beach Boys...'"
I know, but most people are a lot more familiar with the Beach Boys version. Tho I suppose for true retro-copyright action, we should remember the Jan & Dean version:)
What I'm wondering is at what point this becomes something actionable in the criminal courts? Sucking a few grand out of the RIAA in civil court is all well and good, but their shit isn't going to stop until they get dragged in front of a grand jury and it becomes a fullblown *criminal* investigation.
Of course, meanwhile suits like this one become fodder for the evidence cannon...
True, and I considered that, but the sheer size of the galaxy and our presently very-small noise footprint (and non-unique star probably of no special interest to anyone) are not in favour of being found even by those who seek and are well-equipped to do so. It's too easy to fall between the cracks even in a thorough sweep. Kinda like finding a needle in a haystack using a metal dectector -- it can be done, but chances are you'll miss it on the first several passes, and only find it once you get down to special-case searching.
IOW, sure, we could be found by a sufficiently dedicated process, but it's as liable to be a hit-or-miss, accidental encounter as it is to be deliberate. And if you were looking for [whatever] would you concentrate on the galactic fringes? I sure wouldn't. Not only that, but there's a lot of fringe to search before you even GET this far out. Even automation takes time and effort (and probably some form of money), and I doubt any civilization has infinite resources to spend on it -- if they did, they'd already be here.
And when they arrive, what will we hear??
"Yep, you can *see* civilization from here -- with a good telescope";)
Slashdot Mirror
There is a hideous irony between your post and your sig...
:(
As someone once put it, "A jury consists of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty".
Likely your activities have helped make judges more aware of this, too, so they're more likely to go "Hey, wait a minute, since when is this legal? No way!" instead of just going along with whatever the RIAA wants.
:)
I did like this judge effectively saying, "Read the law, dumbasses"
Yep. All one need do is observe behaviour at any grade school, where there is effectively no privacy and everyone knows everyone else's business (as minimal as that is at the grade-school level). Tribalism and uniformity are, if anything, strongly enhanced by this "transparency" since everyone can SEE which folks are "not of our tribe" (for reasons that would go unnoticed were they private) and therefore should be done away with. And this has nothing to do with behaviour that adults enforce; kids do it all by themselves. Watch any unsupervised playground group for a while, to see it in action.
As to another poster who hopes that multiple minorities would trump the tyranny of the majority -- that's never worked before, why would it work now?? if anything, the various fringe groups consider one another even more the Enemy!
As I've said over and over: Privacy is personhood; the assurance that you matter as an individual. This is why I content that privacy, no matter how small, is the single most important factor in a child's normal development.
But longhouse dwellers usually had an individual private place, away from the village, that no one else knew of (nor would be welcome there).
You can watch the same behaviour with little kids who share a room: each child exhibits a strong need for a place, no matter how minimal, that is their OWN and is free from snooping by siblings, parents, or anyone else. Privacy is personhood; the concept that you matter as an individual, and not solely as a member of the transparent group.
I've often said that the most important thing you can give your kids is privacy -- a space of their own (however minimal), so they feel that they are a person, not an object.
It applies just the same to adults.
"One might hope that social norms would change to become more accepting - that is, that all behaviors that are not illegal or unethical would also not be shameful."
I think it would work the other way around -- all behaviours you don't want aired in public would automatically become shameful.
I vaguely recall that in Puritan society, the village proctor could walk into your house and inspect your life any time he pleased. And in that society, everything not officially sanctioned was shameful. I think the two concepts go hand in hand.
Bingo. Exactly the same as lack of privacy will do to society at large.
As I suggest elsewhere, SoundExchange needs competition that could do a similar blanket license and royalty, without every artist and broadcaster needing an individual agreement. How about if some trustworthy outfit like CDBaby got into the act? they're already set up to pay artists; adding royalties shouldn't be that difficult.
Per a knowledgeable explanation someone posted last time this went around, royalties are collected by SoundExchange, UNLESS the artist/composer has an explicit agreement to the contrary *with each and every broadcaster* for *each and every song*. Since that's not practical (who's going to chase down thousands of artists, most of whom move around like spring flies?), we really only have SoundExchange in the royalty-collecting business. And since most artists don't even know about it, most never collect their royalties.
But (and I've suggested this before) what if some other outfit started offering a similar blanket royalty contract, where broadcasters would only need to deal with this one entity. CDBaby is already set up to pay indie artists for CD sales; it wouldn't be that much more difficult to set up a royalty contract that these same indie artists could take advantage of. Voila, SoundExchange is out of the loop, and broadcasters still don't have to chase down and get individual contracts from thousands of artists. And even if CDBaby kept half of what they collect (just as they do with CD sales) the artists would still come out well ahead of what they get from SoundExchange.
And as a side benefit, it would encourage artists to move away from the RIAA labels and business model.
Just for reference, in SoCal in 1982, the price of overhead lines was $16/foot, but buried cable was $40/foot. It's probably 3 times that now.
Plus there's a quirk of CA tax law that impacts it (per what the Edison and Verizon guys have told me):
Overhead lines are taxable. Buried cable is not.
But the "beautification" laws forbid new overhead lines, cuz they're "ugly".
And the cities/counties don't want to issue permits for anything new that they can't tax. So they won't issue permits for buried cable.
So the only way to get new lines of any sort is to pay enough bri^H^H^H campaign contributions to the right pockets to get your buried cable permits.
Bingo. "If you have nothing to hide, show us your papers, Komrade!" isn't just about privacy. It's about the paranoia of those who want to know about everything you do. After all, what they don't know about MIGHT be plotting to overthrow THEM.
With privacy, you are a person. Without it, you are a nonperson.
This is why I insist that of all the things you can give your kids, the single most important gift is privacy -- the assurance that he is a person, capable of achieving trust, not an object that can never be trusted.
Thus privacy enhances moral behaviour, rather than detracting from it: Personhood engenders responsibility. Without personhood, why should anyone give a fuck about the consequences of their actions? Look at the behaviour of kids with overbearing parents -- they are the MOST likely to rebel. Adults are just older kids.
That's an excellent point. Laws need to be written so they work not only when the Good Guys are in power, but ALSO WHEN THE BAD GUYS ARE IN POWER.
Because in an elected system, sooner or later, the Opposition (whichever side you feel that is) gets a turn in the driver's seat. Do you really want THEM deciding HOW to apply a law that has potential for abuse?
The earliest quote that I've seen on the subject is from several hundred years previous. I expect there is some similar thought expressed in the early Greek and Roman writings. Anyway, it's clear that thinking men have grokked the concept for a long time, probably for since there first existed ANY government with sufficient power to coerce its citizens.
If it gets that far... well, remember the military is made up of citizens too, ALL of whom have been civilians in the past. And soldiers ARE capable of deciding not to follow illegal orders. Yeah, it's hard for any such group to buck orders, but if we citizens support the military so the average grunt views civilians as his FRIENDS, not as The Enemy -- he's a lot more likely to refuse to fire on a citizen militia.
"People who think that they need alibis could always sign up to be voluntarily minded after by a private company."
:/
I think you've just invented the most successful business model for the new millennium
As I recall, NYC sits atop another major fault line, expected to let loose with an 8.5 or so somewhere in the next couple millennia.
:D
If the Big Three all let loose at once, all that'll be left is North Dakota.
"It is not enough to simply fight when the abuse happens, but we must also fight the possible abuse that can occur." ...and to paraphrase the usual intent of blanket surveillance...
"It is not enough to simply catch criminals, but we must also catch the possible crimes that can occur."
There is a peculiarly ugly symmetry at work here.
It appears that the more the gov't seeks to prevent "possible crimes", the more vigilantly We The People must seek to prevent abuse.
Or something like those new vertical fans they're now selling for household use. In fact he might be able to mount 3 or 4 of those side by side without going beyond the vehicle's wheelbase width ... the engineering might get more complex but the added power and maneuverability might be worth it.
:)
Also would probably have less negative effect from headwinds.
Regardless, it's cool and I want one.
An AC informs us, "That is so funny! Except that the original song was done by 'Jan & Dean,' not the 'Beach Boys...'"
:)
I know, but most people are a lot more familiar with the Beach Boys version. Tho I suppose for true retro-copyright action, we should remember the Jan & Dean version
Oh man, that's just too perfect... wonder if Weird Al would be interested in doing it? since I suspect Brian Wilson is right out.
What I'm wondering is at what point this becomes something actionable in the criminal courts? Sucking a few grand out of the RIAA in civil court is all well and good, but their shit isn't going to stop until they get dragged in front of a grand jury and it becomes a fullblown *criminal* investigation.
Of course, meanwhile suits like this one become fodder for the evidence cannon...
True, and I considered that, but the sheer size of the galaxy and our presently very-small noise footprint (and non-unique star probably of no special interest to anyone) are not in favour of being found even by those who seek and are well-equipped to do so. It's too easy to fall between the cracks even in a thorough sweep. Kinda like finding a needle in a haystack using a metal dectector -- it can be done, but chances are you'll miss it on the first several passes, and only find it once you get down to special-case searching.
;)
IOW, sure, we could be found by a sufficiently dedicated process, but it's as liable to be a hit-or-miss, accidental encounter as it is to be deliberate. And if you were looking for [whatever] would you concentrate on the galactic fringes? I sure wouldn't. Not only that, but there's a lot of fringe to search before you even GET this far out. Even automation takes time and effort (and probably some form of money), and I doubt any civilization has infinite resources to spend on it -- if they did, they'd already be here.
And when they arrive, what will we hear??
"Yep, you can *see* civilization from here -- with a good telescope"
From what I know of Portland, that's either a brave man or an utter fool!
Exactly.
As someone once said about PETA (which donates money toward these ecoterrorist groups) -- "They don't love animals. They hate people."
A sad indictment of both the school and the students. :(