"...it wouldn't surprise me at all if within the next 200 years or so there's some major population-thinning event like a pandemic, massive starvation, etc."
Local community theatre is definitely a way to start as they always need help. You can learn almost any aspect!
I have no formal schooling in theatre or TV/Film, but that doesn't stop anyone from hiring you for P.A. jobs (production assistant == gopher) but those kind of jobs lead to other more interesting jobs. I went from P.A. to Asst. Location Manager in one week on a movie crew. Look for announcements about independent film crews needed.
I direct, tech/light design, and act in plays -- sometimes for money, sometimes as part of a community effort. I also have worked in various capacities in the film and TV production industries when opportunity and time allowed.
I find that my 2nd "job" is something which uses my brain completely differently than my IT job. It also uses my whole person differently -- my social interactions, how I problem solve situations, my overview of the inherent structure (or lack thereof) involved in the performing arts world are VERY different from my tech support life. Perhaps because theatre is more my passion than computers, I find putting on a show more spritiually rewarding. And it makes my IT day-job that much more tolerable.
So I guess I'd answer this way -- choose a 2nd job that aligns with your passions, but is different enough from your day job to keep things interesting. The benefits are obvious (I hope) and they might just outweigh the biggest drawback which is sometimes you don't make as much money as you'd like.
This is a news site (loosely). Editors modify content for their publication. Perhaps/. editors should just alter story submissions rather than letting you know what was submitted vs their editorializing? No, you'd not like that either I suppose...
I just remembered about this guy, Steve Mann. Wacky stuff in the early days but I think this is what he was trying to do. I can't really follow what he talks about now.
I remember a collaborative video project just for multi-source, low-res, worn computer news. Lots of folk wandering around gathering video from their eye-perspective (using early webcams and gargantuan backpack rigs) just so the news could have multiple collaborative sources.
How you choose to vote is your business. You could vote for Nader because John Kerry's hair offends you and you want Kerry to lose.
My choosing not to vote is my business and I'm allowed to do that in this system of government. If I have any "civic duty" whatsoever, then it is to use the polls for an effective political purpose to further this great country. I have done that by not voting and telling people why I didn't vote.
When about half the country doesn't vote, the majority of the populace has just told you that they are not interested in the "lesser of two evils" or the "locked down two-party system." It is kind of unfair that the minority that likes that warped thing gets to beat their breast with pride and proclaim "civic duty fulfilled!" My voting for anyone in the current system does not allow me to fulfill my civic duty to use the polls for the betterment of this nation. I'll (not) vote and stay in the majority and let the message continue to sink in.
As you say. You consider it a personal responsibility.
As a citizen I only have one obligation -- obey the law. There is no law that says I am obligated to vote.
I get your point about a "social contract." It is an unwritten thing. I am saying that I am fulfilling that unwritten obligation by NOT voting because of all the things that action says. I am allowed (and obligated in your social contract) to take the action at voting time that I feel has the most meaning (or whatever my qualifiers are). Not voting sends a powerful message. It could mean that I am dissatisfied with our system of politics. It could mean that I am completely satisfied. How do you know which it is? The same ways you know whether a John Kerry vote was for him or against President Bush -- you read about it somewhere other than the results of the polls.
None Of The Above. I'm not a supporter or follower of this organization, but they help make my point.
Interesting tag. I could say that "taxpayers are citizens; all others are residents" and be equally as clever and as wrong as you are.
Voting gives you nothing over the rest of society. It gives YOU peace of mind that you were involved in your own way. I may choose to get my peace of mind by not voting. Neither of us gets a citizen "promotion" for our act. Your statment implies that you are entitled to something and I am not. I'm no constitutional expert so I'll let you tell me where it says that your point of view enhances your status in this country.
There are an infinity of reasons to not vote. All of them are valid forms of protected expression and therefore should be counted.
If I think NONE of the candidates are worthy of leading this country, and therefore choose not to vote, I am not a citizen? I'd argue I'm MORE of a citizen because I'm interested in the greater institution of the United States of America, not some guys who scraped up a few hundred million bucks this year to get on TV a lot.
If I feel that ANY of the candidates are equally capable and I'm really not interested in the few percentage swing in government that occurs during a single term, and therefore choose to not waste taxpayer's dollars by having someone count my vote, I lose rights? I shouldn't because I fully support the system that is designed to not make things get too crazy and be reversible every 4 years.
I pay taxes. Am I not afforded the COMPLETE rights of citizenry (including exercising free speech about the candidates) even if I don't vote? I damn well better 'cause I paid for them!
I don't pay taxes because my full-time job and life situation keep me below poverty level as defined by my government. I blame them. It's not just the candidates -- it's the whole system. I choose not to vote, and thereby exercise my constitutional right not to, so I can be in the MAJORITY of people expressing apathy with things as they are. I lose rights? I damn well better not since I paid for them in something stronger than $$$.
If I feel that putting forth a non-partisan website dedicated to educating voters about the power of voting and choose to not vote myself to maintain the true non-partisan-ness of my dialogue, I'm denied something?
If I just don't care because in general my life is okay and has never been affected by who is playing hide-the-sausage in the White House, and just don't feel like voting so that individual can feel more important for a few years, I'm somehow a reduced person?
It doesn't matter if I voted or not -- it is the President's job to have ALL the citizens' in mind when a decision is made that affects some of them. They don't get to ignore those who didn't vote for them and they don't get to ignore those that didn't vote at all.
All that being said, I like to think it is important to vote. I never have. I might this year for the first time ever. If I decide not to, you don't get to decide that I don't count.
Thank you for sharing with me your very thoughtful comments about the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004." It is good to hear from you.
For many years, I have been a supporter of new technologies and new ways of delivering digital content to consumers. This issue is particularly important to me, and to rural states like Vermont, because the digital age has the potential to bring more content - books, movies, music, and other forms of entertainment - at lower cost and in ways that are easier to use. However, when these technologies are misused, it prevents the deployment of still better ways of delivering content because copyright holders fear, rather than embrace, the new technology.
In order for exciting new technologies to flourish, the United States must protect intellectual property. The creative spirit of America has made our country the unquestioned leader in this part of the world economy, but our innovators will only continue to amaze us with new creations if the rights inherent in their works can be protected. In Vermont, we have seen how more traditional forms of piracy hurt our industries. For example, knock-offs of Burton Snowboards' products have been found around the world, robbing that company of revenues it deserves. I helped pass a law in 1996 to combat this form of piracy, and I am working on more legislation that will help Vermont's companies protect their goods.
The "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" is aimed at stopping another form of piracy that costs innovators billions of dollars. Digital piracy is on the rise, and in the case of software piracy alone, infringers siphoned away nearly $29 billion from copyright holders in 2003. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004," along with Senators Daschle, Boxer, Clinton, Hatch, Graham of South Carolina, and Frist, because I think we need to do more to stem the tide of piracy - but we need to do it in a way that does not target technology. The bill is straightforward, clarifying a longstanding common law principle in the copyright law. It is a provision that has also been found for years in patent law. Specifically, the legislation treats those who induce copyright infringement as infringers themselves. Our experience with patent law shows us that such provisions work: over the years, the number of patents has steadily grown and patent-related industries continue to thrive.
I realize that there has been some confusion about this legislation, and that some have viewed its provisions as anti-technology. Although I disagree with this characterization, I want to assure you that I am working to address these concerns. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as I work to generate consensus on this bill, and to pass laws that are good for copyright holders, good for technology, and - most of all - good for consumers.
Thank you again for contacting me, and please keep in touch.
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
You know you've been on /. too long when...
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 1
The place-hands-on-cheeks-and-pull-back dept makes your stomach involuntarily turn thinking about the times you mistakenly clicked on the goatse guy...
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
I cannot, in good faith, install a beta product on our companies PCs. I don't want to install Mozilla because it also has an email package which I don't need (bloat), and that I'd have to support (of course by simply saying "don't use it" but when someone breaks their email I'll still have to fix it).
And our system of government allows that to happen as well as be rectified later. Kinda cool, that.
Got a problem with the law? Work to change it. It's allowed. Increase your odds by timing things better and not pissing people off the way Rep. Sanders just did. (He didn't piss ME off -- I'm all for the change!)
Got a problem with the system? Work to change that, too. Combining them, however, will likely not get you very far. Arguing both at the same time loses your listener rather quickly as they can't tell what you are arguing for.
Last time I installed Win2K it added 4 crappy icons in a folder on my desktop. They were for AOL, Compuserve, Earthlink, and MSN or something like that. By even suggesting AOL they are implying that another browser option exists.
Even if this is no longer the case (no icons are installed), the fact that AOL (based on Netscape now, right?) is CURRENTLY installed in MILLIONS of homes, as you say, means people are already using another browser BY CHOICE. TELL ME that your mom hasn't heard of AOL. Oh please, tell me it's true!
Your argument of choice answers itself with itself. Please make your point?
(disclaimer -- I'm from Vermont and think Rep. Sanders does a great job... usually)
President Bush was going to veto the whole bill if this amendment were attached -- and every house representative, including the amendments supporters, knew that going in.
The bill it was attached to was a finance bill for the Justice, Commerce, and State departments -- hardly the right place for it.
The PATRIOT Act itself has a formal review coming up soon anyway.
What Rep. Sanders hoped to achieve at this time is questionable. With all those other things stacked up against him, the best he could have hoped for was a little media buzz at the expense of 420 representatives' time. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I support the idea behind this proposed legislation, but this specific instance was doomed from the start.
Don't complain that it didn't get passed this time since it wasn't going to anyway. Help get it passed when the timing is more appropriate.
So after encountering this problem I cannot, as a normal user with an OEM Product ID actually get the fix from Microsoft. I jumped through all their hoops (Contact Microsoft, get a.NET Passport, etc.) but since the letters OEM are in my Product ID I'm screwed. Called my normal computer resource and they have all OEM copies, too. SO if you bought a PC from an online retailer that installed an OEM copy (like they're supposed to) you have to get the fix from them -- but they probably can't get it either.
They make a patch
to fix a hole
which breaks something else
which requires you belong to a special club that paid more than I did
and somehow knew they'd get better treatment (that wasn't clear in my "discount")
to get the NEXT fix
AFTER they said they'd patch even stolen copies of their product.
Where is my motivation to play by the rules, which I did and am screwed?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Oops.
You forgot "war."
Local community theatre is definitely a way to start as they always need help. You can learn almost any aspect!
I have no formal schooling in theatre or TV/Film, but that doesn't stop anyone from hiring you for P.A. jobs (production assistant == gopher) but those kind of jobs lead to other more interesting jobs. I went from P.A. to Asst. Location Manager in one week on a movie crew. Look for announcements about independent film crews needed.
Lots of people wearing spam undergarments where you live? Oops. I've asked too much...
I direct, tech/light design, and act in plays -- sometimes for money, sometimes as part of a community effort. I also have worked in various capacities in the film and TV production industries when opportunity and time allowed.
I find that my 2nd "job" is something which uses my brain completely differently than my IT job. It also uses my whole person differently -- my social interactions, how I problem solve situations, my overview of the inherent structure (or lack thereof) involved in the performing arts world are VERY different from my tech support life. Perhaps because theatre is more my passion than computers, I find putting on a show more spritiually rewarding. And it makes my IT day-job that much more tolerable.
So I guess I'd answer this way -- choose a 2nd job that aligns with your passions, but is different enough from your day job to keep things interesting. The benefits are obvious (I hope) and they might just outweigh the biggest drawback which is sometimes you don't make as much money as you'd like.
At a quick glance I thought this said "Top Ten PRESIDENT design flaws" which would have been an equally interesting list.
From the script of 'Objects in Space'
WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
The irony of your statement is sublime.
/. editors should just alter story submissions rather than letting you know what was submitted vs their editorializing? No, you'd not like that either I suppose...
This is a news site (loosely). Editors modify content for their publication. Perhaps
Attributes of the physical media, that's why.
You can't scratch a cartridge.
Is that Italian Spam?
Electronic News Gathering Wearcomps
I just remembered about this guy, Steve Mann. Wacky stuff in the early days but I think this is what he was trying to do. I can't really follow what he talks about now.
I remember a collaborative video project just for multi-source, low-res, worn computer news. Lots of folk wandering around gathering video from their eye-perspective (using early webcams and gargantuan backpack rigs) just so the news could have multiple collaborative sources.
How you choose to vote is your business. You could vote for Nader because John Kerry's hair offends you and you want Kerry to lose.
My choosing not to vote is my business and I'm allowed to do that in this system of government. If I have any "civic duty" whatsoever, then it is to use the polls for an effective political purpose to further this great country. I have done that by not voting and telling people why I didn't vote.
When about half the country doesn't vote, the majority of the populace has just told you that they are not interested in the "lesser of two evils" or the "locked down two-party system." It is kind of unfair that the minority that likes that warped thing gets to beat their breast with pride and proclaim "civic duty fulfilled!" My voting for anyone in the current system does not allow me to fulfill my civic duty to use the polls for the betterment of this nation. I'll (not) vote and stay in the majority and let the message continue to sink in.
As you say. You consider it a personal responsibility.
As a citizen I only have one obligation -- obey the law. There is no law that says I am obligated to vote.
I get your point about a "social contract." It is an unwritten thing. I am saying that I am fulfilling that unwritten obligation by NOT voting because of all the things that action says. I am allowed (and obligated in your social contract) to take the action at voting time that I feel has the most meaning (or whatever my qualifiers are). Not voting sends a powerful message. It could mean that I am dissatisfied with our system of politics. It could mean that I am completely satisfied. How do you know which it is? The same ways you know whether a John Kerry vote was for him or against President Bush -- you read about it somewhere other than the results of the polls.
None Of The Above. I'm not a supporter or follower of this organization, but they help make my point.
Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful dialogue!
Interesting tag. I could say that "taxpayers are citizens; all others are residents" and be equally as clever and as wrong as you are.
Voting gives you nothing over the rest of society. It gives YOU peace of mind that you were involved in your own way. I may choose to get my peace of mind by not voting. Neither of us gets a citizen "promotion" for our act. Your statment implies that you are entitled to something and I am not. I'm no constitutional expert so I'll let you tell me where it says that your point of view enhances your status in this country.
There are an infinity of reasons to not vote. All of them are valid forms of protected expression and therefore should be counted.
If I think NONE of the candidates are worthy of leading this country, and therefore choose not to vote, I am not a citizen? I'd argue I'm MORE of a citizen because I'm interested in the greater institution of the United States of America, not some guys who scraped up a few hundred million bucks this year to get on TV a lot.
If I feel that ANY of the candidates are equally capable and I'm really not interested in the few percentage swing in government that occurs during a single term, and therefore choose to not waste taxpayer's dollars by having someone count my vote, I lose rights? I shouldn't because I fully support the system that is designed to not make things get too crazy and be reversible every 4 years.
I pay taxes. Am I not afforded the COMPLETE rights of citizenry (including exercising free speech about the candidates) even if I don't vote? I damn well better 'cause I paid for them!
I don't pay taxes because my full-time job and life situation keep me below poverty level as defined by my government. I blame them. It's not just the candidates -- it's the whole system. I choose not to vote, and thereby exercise my constitutional right not to, so I can be in the MAJORITY of people expressing apathy with things as they are. I lose rights? I damn well better not since I paid for them in something stronger than $$$.
If I feel that putting forth a non-partisan website dedicated to educating voters about the power of voting and choose to not vote myself to maintain the true non-partisan-ness of my dialogue, I'm denied something?
If I just don't care because in general my life is okay and has never been affected by who is playing hide-the-sausage in the White House, and just don't feel like voting so that individual can feel more important for a few years, I'm somehow a reduced person?
It doesn't matter if I voted or not -- it is the President's job to have ALL the citizens' in mind when a decision is made that affects some of them. They don't get to ignore those who didn't vote for them and they don't get to ignore those that didn't vote at all.
All that being said, I like to think it is important to vote. I never have. I might this year for the first time ever. If I decide not to, you don't get to decide that I don't count.
His response is posted above.
(here is his original statement http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200406/062304a.html which generated my letter. Below is his response to my letter above.)
Thank you for sharing with me your very thoughtful comments about the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004." It is good to hear from you.
For many years, I have been a supporter of new technologies and new ways of delivering digital content to consumers. This issue is particularly important to me, and to rural states like Vermont, because the digital age has the potential to bring more content - books, movies, music, and other forms of entertainment - at lower cost and in ways that are easier to use. However, when these technologies are misused, it prevents the deployment of still better ways of delivering content because copyright holders fear, rather than embrace, the new technology.
In order for exciting new technologies to flourish, the United States must protect intellectual property. The creative spirit of America has made our country the unquestioned leader in this part of the world economy, but our innovators will only continue to amaze us with new creations if the rights inherent in their works can be protected. In Vermont, we have seen how more traditional forms of piracy hurt our industries. For example, knock-offs of Burton Snowboards' products have been found around the world, robbing that company of revenues it deserves. I helped pass a law in 1996 to combat this form of piracy, and I am working on more legislation that will help Vermont's companies protect their goods.
The "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" is aimed at stopping another form of piracy that costs innovators billions of dollars. Digital piracy is on the rise, and in the case of software piracy alone, infringers siphoned away nearly $29 billion from copyright holders in 2003. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004," along with Senators Daschle, Boxer, Clinton, Hatch, Graham of South Carolina, and Frist, because I think we need to do more to stem the tide of piracy - but we need to do it in a way that does not target technology. The bill is straightforward, clarifying a longstanding common law principle in the copyright law. It is a provision that has also been found for years in patent law. Specifically, the legislation treats those who induce copyright infringement as infringers themselves. Our experience with patent law shows us that such provisions work: over the years, the number of patents has steadily grown and patent-related industries continue to thrive.
I realize that there has been some confusion about this legislation, and that some have viewed its provisions as anti-technology. Although I disagree with this characterization, I want to assure you that I am working to address these concerns. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as I work to generate consensus on this bill, and to pass laws that are good for copyright holders, good for technology, and - most of all - good for consumers.
Thank you again for contacting me, and please keep in touch.
Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
http://leahy.senate.gov/
(here is the letter I sent, misspellings intact)
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
The place-hands-on-cheeks-and-pull-back dept makes your stomach involuntarily turn thinking about the times you mistakenly clicked on the goatse guy...
(I left my typos intact...)
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
I cannot, in good faith, install a beta product on our companies PCs. I don't want to install Mozilla because it also has an email package which I don't need (bloat), and that I'd have to support (of course by simply saying "don't use it" but when someone breaks their email I'll still have to fix it).
I _NEED_ Firefox to get to 1.0!!!
And our system of government allows that to happen as well as be rectified later. Kinda cool, that.
Got a problem with the law? Work to change it. It's allowed. Increase your odds by timing things better and not pissing people off the way Rep. Sanders just did. (He didn't piss ME off -- I'm all for the change!)
Got a problem with the system? Work to change that, too. Combining them, however, will likely not get you very far. Arguing both at the same time loses your listener rather quickly as they can't tell what you are arguing for.
Last time I installed Win2K it added 4 crappy icons in a folder on my desktop. They were for AOL, Compuserve, Earthlink, and MSN or something like that. By even suggesting AOL they are implying that another browser option exists.
Even if this is no longer the case (no icons are installed), the fact that AOL (based on Netscape now, right?) is CURRENTLY installed in MILLIONS of homes, as you say, means people are already using another browser BY CHOICE. TELL ME that your mom hasn't heard of AOL. Oh please, tell me it's true!
Your argument of choice answers itself with itself. Please make your point?
(disclaimer -- I'm from Vermont and think Rep. Sanders does a great job ... usually)
President Bush was going to veto the whole bill if this amendment were attached -- and every house representative, including the amendments supporters, knew that going in.
The bill it was attached to was a finance bill for the Justice, Commerce, and State departments -- hardly the right place for it.
The PATRIOT Act itself has a formal review coming up soon anyway.
What Rep. Sanders hoped to achieve at this time is questionable. With all those other things stacked up against him, the best he could have hoped for was a little media buzz at the expense of 420 representatives' time. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I support the idea behind this proposed legislation, but this specific instance was doomed from the start.
Don't complain that it didn't get passed this time since it wasn't going to anyway. Help get it passed when the timing is more appropriate.
Even better is the fact that two PCs with identical hardware and configurations MIGHT react differently to the original patch so you can't use a safety PC and pre-test a roll-out. Grrr.
They make a patch
to fix a hole
which breaks something else
which requires you belong to a special club
that paid more than I did
and somehow knew they'd get better treatment (that wasn't clear in my "discount")
to get the NEXT fix
AFTER they said they'd patch even stolen copies of their product.
Where is my motivation to play by the rules, which I did and am screwed?