If people in the P2P community are activists participating in civil disobedience, then why aren't they out in front of the offices of Sony, BMG, etc. with a laptop burning copies of music CDs and handing them out to bystanders?
The whole point of civil disobedience is to openly defy the law you are fighting against, with the expectation that you will be publicly arrested (and thereby garner support for your cause).
Read my post again. All I said is that hosting a website illegally distributing copyrighted materials for personal profit does not qualify as an act of civil disobedience.
You're grasping at ridiculous points to counter an argument I never even made. It's not like the FBI is lurking around libraries waiting for people to make copies of a book pages.
"More recently, in the 2000s, people have used civil disobedience to protest....the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
An act of civil disobedience invloves openly and blatantly breaking the law, so that the inevitable arrest is very public, in order to garner public sympathy for their cause.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
Oh get over yourself. An act of civil disobedience invloves openly and blatantly breaking the law, so that the inevitable arrest is very public, in order to garner public sympathy for their cause.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
I'm sorry but putting "innovative" in the same sentence as "racing game" is a tough sell, no matter how "cool" the game may be. And this is definitely not "Stuff that matters".
"Essentially, the media (as usual) got a bit carried away with a non-story: Carnivore was designed to protect your rights from being invaded while sniffing only suspect data."
No, no, NO!!
I read it on SLASHDOT!! The Gubmint wants to read my e-mail! It's part of their Total Information Awareness plot to put me in JAIL! They want to label me a TERRORIST and send me to GITMO!!
Don't tell me it's not true! It's on the INTERNET for crying out loud!
That's a rather specious claim to make. There are a lot of hunters and target-shooters who don't use guns to kill people who would disagree.
"In both cases the effort needs to be put in to policing the actual offenders and not the makers of tools which criminals may happen to use for their criminal activities."
That kind of consistency is all I'm asking for here.
Every time such a law shows up on Slashdot, the tired cliche of "What about guns" comes up, and is modded up as insightful.
Now let's suppose, for argument's sake, that a vast majority of guns manufactured and sold in this country were used to commit murder. I think a vast majority here would expect the government to intervene.
However here we have P2P networks, that are used almost exclusively to commit copyright infringement. Yet Slashbots piss and moan that the government wants to do something to curb that crime.
"A ruling from a couple of week ago in Sweden made it legal for anyone to crack programs and other schemes as long as it is for personal use."
That's the big difference between Sweden and the U.S., isn't it? In Sweden, everything is assumed to be illegal, and laws are enacted to make them legal. Here it works quite the opposite! Hurrah for capitalism!
"you could have (and should have) made your voice heard by choosing representatives and executives who hold your same view."
I did: I voted Libertarian.
"It just happens that the large large majority of this country thnks Social Security is a fantastic idea, and love to pay into it."
Following your will-of-the-people voting logic, it would seem that a majority of the people think that Social Security is an awful idea, and have elected Bush to get rid of it.
I for on am tired of being expected to pick up the bill for people who refuse to provide for themselves or their family. Yes, shit happens, but taking care of those people is a job for charity, not the government. You seem to be confusing the two.
Want to help children? You can start by ending the bullshit myth that Social Security is going to be around to help then when they fail.
That's funny I never read the clause in the constitution that guaranteed everyone a life of comfort (let alone at taxpayer expense).
Your belief that the good of the collective supercede the rights of the individual are contrary to the concept of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on.
The problem with that stance is that it contradicts the Democrat platform of making people reliant upon the government for their basic needs. Opponents of Social Security reform argue on principle, despite the facts.
That's funny, nobody asks ME, every two weeks, how much of my paycheck I would like to divert to SS, or if there is an alternate fund I would like to invest that money in.
Slashdot Mirror
th15 15 n0t th3ft!!
1nf0rm4t10n w4nt5 t00 b3 fr33!!!
If people in the P2P community are activists participating in civil disobedience, then why aren't they out in front of the offices of Sony, BMG, etc. with a laptop burning copies of music CDs and handing them out to bystanders?
The whole point of civil disobedience is to openly defy the law you are fighting against, with the expectation that you will be publicly arrested (and thereby garner support for your cause).
That isn't happening here.
Read my post again. All I said is that hosting a website illegally distributing copyrighted materials for personal profit does not qualify as an act of civil disobedience.
You're grasping at ridiculous points to counter an argument I never even made. It's not like the FBI is lurking around libraries waiting for people to make copies of a book pages.
From wikipedia:
"More recently, in the 2000s, people have used civil disobedience to protest....the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
An act of civil disobedience invloves openly and blatantly breaking the law, so that the inevitable arrest is very public, in order to garner public sympathy for their cause.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
Somebody needs to correct that entry.
As opposed to what? NOT doing their job?
Sure, you may question the FBI's priorities, but it IS their job to enforce all federal laws. Even the ones you personally disagree with.
Oh get over yourself. An act of civil disobedience invloves openly and blatantly breaking the law, so that the inevitable arrest is very public, in order to garner public sympathy for their cause.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
Thank you for the unique perspective. You hit the nail right on the head.
How many baseball/basketball/football/etc. games with real players' names does the world really need?
I'm sorry but putting "innovative" in the same sentence as "racing game" is a tough sell, no matter how "cool" the game may be. And this is definitely not "Stuff that matters".
No, no, NO!!
I read it on SLASHDOT!! The Gubmint wants to read my e-mail! It's part of their Total Information Awareness plot to put me in JAIL! They want to label me a TERRORIST and send me to GITMO!!
Don't tell me it's not true! It's on the INTERNET for crying out loud!
That's a rather specious claim to make. There are a lot of hunters and target-shooters who don't use guns to kill people who would disagree.
"In both cases the effort needs to be put in to policing the actual offenders and not the makers of tools which criminals may happen to use for their criminal activities."
That kind of consistency is all I'm asking for here.
Puh-leeze!
Every time such a law shows up on Slashdot, the tired cliche of "What about guns" comes up, and is modded up as insightful.
Now let's suppose, for argument's sake, that a vast majority of guns manufactured and sold in this country were used to commit murder. I think a vast majority here would expect the government to intervene.
However here we have P2P networks, that are used almost exclusively to commit copyright infringement. Yet Slashbots piss and moan that the government wants to do something to curb that crime.
That's inconsistent at best, Slashbots.
That's the big difference between Sweden and the U.S., isn't it? In Sweden, everything is assumed to be illegal, and laws are enacted to make them legal. Here it works quite the opposite! Hurrah for capitalism!
So if I'm allowed to invest my money how I choose, I'm being swindled?
Funny, that's what I thought about being compelled to pay into a system that can't possibly sustain itself.
I did: I voted Libertarian.
"It just happens that the large large majority of this country thnks Social Security is a fantastic idea, and love to pay into it."
Following your will-of-the-people voting logic, it would seem that a majority of the people think that Social Security is an awful idea, and have elected Bush to get rid of it.
I for on am tired of being expected to pick up the bill for people who refuse to provide for themselves or their family. Yes, shit happens, but taking care of those people is a job for charity, not the government. You seem to be confusing the two.
Want to help children? You can start by ending the bullshit myth that Social Security is going to be around to help then when they fail.
The fact that the word crisis in the headline is inside quotation marks speaks volumes as to how Slashdot editors perceive the current situation.
That's funny I never read the clause in the constitution that guaranteed everyone a life of comfort (let alone at taxpayer expense).
Your belief that the good of the collective supercede the rights of the individual are contrary to the concept of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on.
I find myself in exactly that situation, yet nobody has asked me if I want to contribute.
But show me one initiative by Democrats that makes people less dependent upon the government?
...should be illegal.
You or I get fined/jailed for running a Ponzi scheme. Why should government be allowed to run one, let alone compel people to be suckered by it?
The problem with that stance is that it contradicts the Democrat platform of making people reliant upon the government for their basic needs. Opponents of Social Security reform argue on principle, despite the facts.
Yes, I take every story from the NYT with a huge block of salt.
Please don't hold back. It's so unusual to see Gates bashing on Slashdot. I think I'd enjoy the change of pace.
That's funny, nobody asks ME, every two weeks, how much of my paycheck I would like to divert to SS, or if there is an alternate fund I would like to invest that money in.