I'm usually good at playing devils advocate and look at the other point of view when pondering about such things, but I really can't think of any good reason why if the enemy were the only ones remaining that I should allow them to remain after what they'd done.
A good reasons for not mindlessly nuking and murdering thousands of people? Well, let's see:
Realizing that humanity is all on the same "team" would help a lot. We're all in this together. People that cause division and constantly label other humans the "enemy" are usually either missing something, or politicians.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a bad administrator or a bad politician.
What makes administrators or politicians "good" anyway? An MBA, or a PoliSci degree? Hardly.
I'd say a reasonable degree of expertise in your domain, coupled with an ability to listen and evaluate the merits of many different viewpoints are the primary attributes to look for.
People get so caught up trying to teach the "right" way to program that they don't teach how to program first, which is a mistake. Students need to learn the power and wonder of while, for, and regular functions before you can teach them the power of object oriented programming. Computer science is unfamiliar and strange, let students learn the simple things before throwing the advanced concepts at them.
You make a good point here, I would add that we should be teaching basic programming like this in high school and doing a better job of preparing students for university. This is already done in certain areas with Advanced Placement classes that offer college credit. Students that come into university without these fundamentals should expect at least a five-year Bachelor's degree program, with the first year spent focusing on the basics. Trying to cram everything into four years when you're starting from zero makes the C.S. degree extremely difficult for students that went to inadequate high schools.
Disclaimers of warranty are not necessarily legally binding. A decision in court would involve questions of how fair it is for MS to disclaim liability for this.
Unfortunately it's not even about fair. With regards to security, Windows is provided "AS IS". Show me one place where Microsoft even makes the slightest guarantee about security. The product was never engineered to be secure and barring a complete rewrite it never will be. They're not dumb, they know it's not very secure, and they don't advertise it as such. They don't need to "disclaim liability", the courts need to prove why it should be assigned to them in the first place.
Anyone who has an expectation of security in Windows is a sucker, plain and simple. Think about the common excuses: "99% of our customers use it so we have to also." "We store all our data on it, it OUGHT to be secure." "It's too expensive to switch to something else." You choose to use Windows, you get what you pay for. If you failed to do proper research and just created an assumption of security inside your head, it's your own fault. Quit whining about it.
Everyone wants to sue Microsoft just because they exploit human stupidity, and they're really good at it. Great use of the court system.
A lot of that is because of the free trial that lets you play on the real live servers. No CC or anything necessary and you get to try it out and get sucked in.
Preordered my CE from EBWorld (retail) in the mall. Went and picked it up this morning when they opened, I wasn't leaving anything to chance. A coworker also got a copy, and one more went to a guy in front of us in line, so that particular store had at least three copies.
The "server fits" were related 100% to the number of players per server. The open beta was in fact a stress test, and Blizzard did that intentionally. They're tripling the number of servers when it goes live, and there will be far fewer players online, so these issues are effectively moot.
Blizzard's stated reason isn't crap at all, it's perfectly legitimate. Of course you don't realize this, but you're proving that fact just by complaining about it. They want the majority of people, as many as they can, to select their server based on whichever one currently has the least population. Thus insuring a somewhat distribution of players across servers. The only way to make that happen is to have people pick their servers when they first log in and see the screen. If you're already arbitrarily chosen based on server names they've released it completely defeats the purpose.
If they release the names early, then l33t guild A gets to tell everyone they know that they'll be playing on the Sargeras server because it's uber. Guilds B and C want to be allied [with|against] guild A. The effect snowballs and suddenly Sargeras is unbalanced -- not a good thing.
Sorry but what they're doing is entirely justified. What they're doing is in your and everyone else's best interest, as it will keep lag down. Quit whining about it.
Even if you're getting emailed updates every once in awhile, there's no reason to spend your hard-earned duckets on a guide like this. For the same ten bucks you could get a year's subscription to a site like Allakhazam's, which will have daily updates and generally the most recent info on the game that's known.
Funny thing is, back when I was in school I remember skipping a week's worth of classes to play Fallout2. So now the Sims2 gives me the ability to simulate doing that all over again? Oorg it makes my head spin.
688 was one of my favorite games back in the day. You actually had to learn stuff to be good at that one. Forgot all about how fun that was, thanks heh.
This argument just doesn't hold any water, you can't compare the relatively modern theoretical concept of "intellectual property" to physical objects. It's completely impossible to "own" intellectual property.
What you are allowed to own is the right to use a particular piece of intellectual property in order to generate revenue. Once upon a time copyright laws meant that and only that, and this little clause about "fair use" hadn't been flushed into a toilet.
The difference between two companies spending millions, once creating cars and one music? Sure. One has a legitimate business model that completely holds up when subjected to logical examination. The other relies on an artificial construct put in place purely to prop up an otherwise senseless model.
For a moment, just remove that prop. Forget about existing laws and think about this situation: I, as an entrepeneur, come to you requesting that you invest millions of dollars in my product. It'll be a very popular product and I can guarantee lots of people will like it. There's one catch though, as soon as it's finished and we release one copy of it, there's absolutely no possible way to stop people from copying it and giving it away for free. It costs them virtually nothing to do so and there's no way for us to know about it. But since our product will be popular we'll rely on lots of good people to give us money for it instead of getting it for free. Now, how about that million dollars? Or am I sounding just a tad ludicrous?
I'm not going to argue the merits of the artificial copyright construct we've put into place right now, but you simply have to realize that there's just no comparison between the two.
I'm extremely disappointed, and frankly rather suprised, that there weren't any questions concerning foreign policy that made it through. I certainly think that's one of the most relevant issues facing any candidate today.
In any case, from his comments about halving the defense budget and a couple statements about Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to assume his policy tends toward rather extreme isolationism. Is there anyone out there more familiar with the Greens who can clarify?
If that is their position, I have to say that this is a party I can never support. We as Americans are members of the world's sole remaining superpower. We have the ability to wield that power as a force of good in the world, and to stop evil men and regimes from doing evil things. Those that would prefer us to sit tight between our oceans and ignore atrocities around the globe, I not only refuse to tolerate, but condemn.
There is no worse evil than the apathy of good men.
Re:You can hack anything.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do you want this thing out and about?
Please stop with the FUD.
We have satellites, we can also -track- anything. Put a transmitter inside them with a tamper switch. Transmitter goes offline, send in a special forces response team to find out what's happening. Besides, it's in the best interests of every government we give these to that they keep them safe. I'd imagine if they let someone screw with just one we wouldn't give them anymore.
And YES, I do want these things out and about. It's time to quit relying on petroleum for electricity and it's been shown time and time again that other alternatives aren't viable.
Half-Life is a little too far down the scale of pure twitchiness and reflexes vs. strategic thinking and planning.
But people should NOT bash the first-person perspective at all. Done right, it really allows for more impressive graphics, and it doesn't all have to be about how fast you can click.
I've been playing City of Heroes lately, which takes place in a very futuristic city with incredibly nice graphics. The best part is by scrolling the mouse wheel you can move the camera back away from your character into a wide 3rd-person view, or all the way in to a 1st-person. You get to control it. I'd have no problem with something like that.
As to the combat system, City of Heroes is real-time, but every weapon has a limiting recharge time, so no matter how fast you click you have to wait X amount of time for those brass knuckles to cycle, or X+5 for your Red Ryder BB gun. It's first (or 3rd) person, but not a shooter. It's an RPG.
I'd love to play a Fallout game in a system like that. Hopefully they'll do a good job!
Well, actually the government didn't make any such declaration -
But it did though. The US Govt is composed of the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Every court in the country, no matter the level, falls into the general hierarchy of our judicial system. In the case of state vs. federal court I can understand a difference in ruling, as the case was escalated higher.
However, in the civil case following the criminal case I still fail to understand why that is allowed to happen. The person is tried in two courts -at the same level- and the govt winds up contradicting itself.
Now, in murder cases, the government brings charges on behalf of the dead person
As I see it, the government (being defined as the collective will of the people) is bringing the charges not merely for the dead person but for ALL of the people in the country. We have enabled the government to prosecute murders based on our common will. I'm fine with that concept.
The problem I see is that "ALL" the people already includes any family members, friends, well-wishers, or anyone else that wants to jump on the civil lawsuit bandwagon. Their interests have already been addressed by the criminal prosecution. They are just as much included in the part of "we the people" that set up the court system as anyone else.
Therefore it seems to me that those victims have already had their chance to try the defendant. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, there should be no follow-up civil suit allowed for the same crime. I think it does in fact violate the concept of double jeopardy.
I agree completely with the second paragraph, I'm just not seeing why these civil cases are allowed.
DirecTV also agreed to change its pre-lawsuit demand letters to explain in detail how innocent recipients can get DirecTV to drop their cases. The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases.
So basically, you still get a letter threatening a lawsuit. Instead of saying "pay up now and we'll drop the case" it says "come up with evidence supporting you and we'll drop the case."
extortion
1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
Big deal. Instead of them forcing you to directly pay them, they're forcing you to go out of your way, and spend your own time presenting them with evidence, which (in their very own highly impartial secret court) they may or may not decide is good enough reason for them to drop the case. Basically they want you to get on your knees and kiss their arse.
As mentioned in other threads, DTV simply agreed because of tech. advances. If their new scheme gets broken they'll be right back at it.
I see this whole press release as more mutual political agreement than anything else. EFF gets to claim a victory, DTV gets to look less hard-assed...but nothing really changed.
I know this is a stretch to hope for, but might there be some actual lawyers around to clarify...?
To me this seems a contradiction in our justice system. Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second. I understand that it was two different court systems, one criminal and one civil, and that there's a different standard, "proven beyond doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence". However both courts are still under the single system of the US Govt.
We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy". I guess what I don't understand is the legal or moral reasons why we allow these types of civil cases at all. To me, "not being tried twice" is a pretty simple concept. It sure is different from "we'll try you once, and if that doesn't work try you again in a second court that by the way has a lesser standard of guilt."
Especially when the punishments meted out are pretty much equivalent in terms of ruining someone's life. Owing someone millions of dollars that you'll never be able to pay off in your lifetime sounds just as bad (to me at least) as spending years in jail.
Anyway, just curious why that system is like it is.
The situation is no different with cable descramblers.
Actually it's completely different.
To get a cable signal provided to your house you have to sign a contract with a cable provider. Said contract explicitly forbids descrambling their signal. To do so is breach-of-contract.
Now, I'd like you to show me this implicit contract that DTV supporters seem to believe that every person in America signed with them. Sorry but just 'coz they're a monstrous company doesn't mean I choose to let them sign my own name for me and take away my right to do whatever I please in my own house.
I don't know how you could control this either. For software it would mean the end of distribution, period. Once it was sold in digital form it could be redistributed freely. OK, that puts Microsoft effectively out of the game. And Adobe.
Not hardly. You just have to think about things a little differently (and I admit there would certainly be some changes, just not as much as you might think)... Here are some examples:
Dell wants to sell PC's with Windows pre-installed. This is a benefit to their users, it helps their sales, and they can charge more. Now under my new scheme, this would still be illegal (they'd be making money using Microsoft's copyrighted software). So Dell still has to pay Microsoft a fee for each PC (just like it is now). That's a pretty good percentage of users, as most people want an OS on their computer when they buy it.
There's also a good percentage of businesses that do their own installs -- ok, now under the new system they sure could download and install that software for free. BUT -- what exactly are they using those PC's for, hmm? If they're using Microsoft products to make money, then it's time to ante up that licensing fee.
The above example works for Adobe as well. Used Photoshop to do some graphics for a for-profit magazine? Time to ante up.
See, it just requires a different way of thinking. Distribution should be free. For-profit use should require a fair fee paid back to the copyright holder.
I actually believe that there wouldn't be a very significant change in anything. As it is, it's already possible to get a "free" copy of any Microsoft or Adobe product off the 'net.
We should have laws that make sense, and not have laws that chase impossible goals.
That might work if it weren't for the fact that it costs lots more money to record, produce, and (most importantly) distribute than most people can afford. That's why artists get financed through companies. Their rules state that they give you money and in return they get most of the profits. That's just how it works.
Forgive me, I didn't mean to imply that licensing agreements would also be nixed. Change "only one" to read "original copyright holder as well as anyone they license their rights to".
Why is it that as soon as you put money in the equation then piracy isn't okay? I mean really, what's the difference between giving a million people a copy of something for free and giving a million people a copy of something for, say, a penny? What magical line did the person just cross that makes one act "not cool" to piracy advocates?
Because it's not "piracy". No physical property is being stolen, there is no owner being deprived of its use. No seagoing vessels have been boarded, and no villages raped and plundered.
No, what we're talking about is a purely economic concept and the laws relating to it. I am suggesting that we reinterpret those laws. Get off your high horse, this isn't about good and evil, it's just economics.
The whole problem is that we've allowed corporations and other commercial entities to redefine what "illegally copy" means. I mean really, who was it that decided to give them this kind of Godlike power, without any associated responsibility or accountability??
Anyway, I think there's a way to fix it that would be simple and fair for everyone. We need to change the legal definition of what a copyright means. Simply put, a copyright should grant the creator of a work the sole ability to collect revenue based on any use of that work. That's it, that's what you get, and nothing more. You write a book, record a song, make a movie, and you're the only one allowed to make money from it.
If someone is doing something with your work but not cashing in, guess what? Tough beans. You don't get to pull out any bullshit about "lost profits", because all that does is make for more lawyers arguing what that means, and God knows we've got enough of those. You've been granted the right to be the only person in the country who can legally make money from any use of your work, and that's an immensely powerful right. Sorry, but you don't get to have that, AND make that money by sitting on your ass suing people.
Now likewise, if you ARE using someone's copyrighted work to make money, we're going to come down real hard on you. Money always leaves a trail. And the Justice Department will have more than enough bulldogs freed up from hunting fileswappers to chase you down. Not to mention that income has to be -reported-. Try avoiding that, and see how quick the IRS gets after you too. Changing the currently unbalanced copyright laws to be fair to all sides means there will be more serious enforcement.
Ok, I don't really know how great a solution this is and it was a quick explanation, but this being Slashdot I'm sure someone can add something to it.
If you want to stop spewing rhetoric, then consider actually answering the following points:
Your money argument simply does not hold up. Let's say every CD only does cost 10 dollars. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Now, minus an initial cost an Internet connection costs 40 bucks. For 40 bucks a month therefore I can have: 1) 4 CD's with tracks that have been arbitrarily chosen for me. 2) True availability of all music that's ever been digitized and uploaded to the net.
Isn't it obvious which one makes more sense?
You also keep claiming it doesn't fund the creation of music. Please explain to me how exactly we require either the existing music industry or a "viable alternative" in order to keep having music created.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm usually good at playing devils advocate and look at the other point of view when pondering about such things, but I really can't think of any good reason why if the enemy were the only ones remaining that I should allow them to remain after what they'd done.
A good reasons for not mindlessly nuking and murdering thousands of people? Well, let's see:
Realizing that humanity is all on the same "team" would help a lot. We're all in this together. People that cause division and constantly label other humans the "enemy" are usually either missing something, or politicians.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a bad administrator or a bad politician.
What makes administrators or politicians "good" anyway? An MBA, or a PoliSci degree? Hardly.
I'd say a reasonable degree of expertise in your domain, coupled with an ability to listen and evaluate the merits of many different viewpoints are the primary attributes to look for.
People get so caught up trying to teach the "right" way to program that they don't teach how to program first, which is a mistake. Students need to learn the power and wonder of while, for, and regular functions before you can teach them the power of object oriented programming. Computer science is unfamiliar and strange, let students learn the simple things before throwing the advanced concepts at them.
You make a good point here, I would add that we should be teaching basic programming like this in high school and doing a better job of preparing students for university. This is already done in certain areas with Advanced Placement classes that offer college credit. Students that come into university without these fundamentals should expect at least a five-year Bachelor's degree program, with the first year spent focusing on the basics. Trying to cram everything into four years when you're starting from zero makes the C.S. degree extremely difficult for students that went to inadequate high schools.
Reality is for people who can't cope with drugs.
Disclaimers of warranty are not necessarily legally binding. A decision in court would involve questions of how fair it is for MS to disclaim liability for this.
Unfortunately it's not even about fair. With regards to security, Windows is provided "AS IS". Show me one place where Microsoft even makes the slightest guarantee about security. The product was never engineered to be secure and barring a complete rewrite it never will be. They're not dumb, they know it's not very secure, and they don't advertise it as such. They don't need to "disclaim liability", the courts need to prove why it should be assigned to them in the first place.
Anyone who has an expectation of security in Windows is a sucker, plain and simple. Think about the common excuses: "99% of our customers use it so we have to also." "We store all our data on it, it OUGHT to be secure." "It's too expensive to switch to something else." You choose to use Windows, you get what you pay for. If you failed to do proper research and just created an assumption of security inside your head, it's your own fault. Quit whining about it.
Everyone wants to sue Microsoft just because they exploit human stupidity, and they're really good at it. Great use of the court system.
A lot of that is because of the free trial that lets you play on the real live servers. No CC or anything necessary and you get to try it out and get sucked in.
Don't worry, I got it covered.
My dick is so big...
it's the backup plan to bring the shuttle back to Earth!
Preordered my CE from EBWorld (retail) in the mall. Went and picked it up this morning when they opened, I wasn't leaving anything to chance. A coworker also got a copy, and one more went to a guy in front of us in line, so that particular store had at least three copies.
The "server fits" were related 100% to the number of players per server. The open beta was in fact a stress test, and Blizzard did that intentionally. They're tripling the number of servers when it goes live, and there will be far fewer players online, so these issues are effectively moot.
Blizzard's stated reason isn't crap at all, it's perfectly legitimate. Of course you don't realize this, but you're proving that fact just by complaining about it. They want the majority of people, as many as they can, to select their server based on whichever one currently has the least population. Thus insuring a somewhat distribution of players across servers. The only way to make that happen is to have people pick their servers when they first log in and see the screen. If you're already arbitrarily chosen based on server names they've released it completely defeats the purpose.
If they release the names early, then l33t guild A gets to tell everyone they know that they'll be playing on the Sargeras server because it's uber. Guilds B and C want to be allied [with|against] guild A. The effect snowballs and suddenly Sargeras is unbalanced -- not a good thing.
Sorry but what they're doing is entirely justified. What they're doing is in your and everyone else's best interest, as it will keep lag down. Quit whining about it.
Even if you're getting emailed updates every once in awhile, there's no reason to spend your hard-earned duckets on a guide like this. For the same ten bucks you could get a year's subscription to a site like Allakhazam's, which will have daily updates and generally the most recent info on the game that's known.
Funny thing is, back when I was in school I remember skipping a week's worth of classes to play Fallout2. So now the Sims2 gives me the ability to simulate doing that all over again? Oorg it makes my head spin.
688 was one of my favorite games back in the day. You actually had to learn stuff to be good at that one. Forgot all about how fun that was, thanks heh.
This argument just doesn't hold any water, you can't compare the relatively modern theoretical concept of "intellectual property" to physical objects. It's completely impossible to "own" intellectual property.
What you are allowed to own is the right to use a particular piece of intellectual property in order to generate revenue. Once upon a time copyright laws meant that and only that, and this little clause about "fair use" hadn't been flushed into a toilet.
The difference between two companies spending millions, once creating cars and one music? Sure. One has a legitimate business model that completely holds up when subjected to logical examination. The other relies on an artificial construct put in place purely to prop up an otherwise senseless model.
For a moment, just remove that prop. Forget about existing laws and think about this situation: I, as an entrepeneur, come to you requesting that you invest millions of dollars in my product. It'll be a very popular product and I can guarantee lots of people will like it. There's one catch though, as soon as it's finished and we release one copy of it, there's absolutely no possible way to stop people from copying it and giving it away for free. It costs them virtually nothing to do so and there's no way for us to know about it. But since our product will be popular we'll rely on lots of good people to give us money for it instead of getting it for free. Now, how about that million dollars? Or am I sounding just a tad ludicrous?
I'm not going to argue the merits of the artificial copyright construct we've put into place right now, but you simply have to realize that there's just no comparison between the two.
I'm extremely disappointed, and frankly rather suprised, that there weren't any questions concerning foreign policy that made it through. I certainly think that's one of the most relevant issues facing any candidate today.
In any case, from his comments about halving the defense budget and a couple statements about Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to assume his policy tends toward rather extreme isolationism. Is there anyone out there more familiar with the Greens who can clarify?
If that is their position, I have to say that this is a party I can never support. We as Americans are members of the world's sole remaining superpower. We have the ability to wield that power as a force of good in the world, and to stop evil men and regimes from doing evil things. Those that would prefer us to sit tight between our oceans and ignore atrocities around the globe, I not only refuse to tolerate, but condemn.
There is no worse evil than the apathy of good men.
Do you want this thing out and about?
Please stop with the FUD.
We have satellites, we can also -track- anything. Put a transmitter inside them with a tamper switch. Transmitter goes offline, send in a special forces response team to find out what's happening. Besides, it's in the best interests of every government we give these to that they keep them safe. I'd imagine if they let someone screw with just one we wouldn't give them anymore.
And YES, I do want these things out and about. It's time to quit relying on petroleum for electricity and it's been shown time and time again that other alternatives aren't viable.
Half-Life is a little too far down the scale of pure twitchiness and reflexes vs. strategic thinking and planning.
But people should NOT bash the first-person perspective at all. Done right, it really allows for more impressive graphics, and it doesn't all have to be about how fast you can click.
I've been playing City of Heroes lately, which takes place in a very futuristic city with incredibly nice graphics. The best part is by scrolling the mouse wheel you can move the camera back away from your character into a wide 3rd-person view, or all the way in to a 1st-person. You get to control it. I'd have no problem with something like that.
As to the combat system, City of Heroes is real-time, but every weapon has a limiting recharge time, so no matter how fast you click you have to wait X amount of time for those brass knuckles to cycle, or X+5 for your Red Ryder BB gun. It's first (or 3rd) person, but not a shooter. It's an RPG.
I'd love to play a Fallout game in a system like that. Hopefully they'll do a good job!
Well, actually the government didn't make any such declaration -
But it did though. The US Govt is composed of the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Every court in the country, no matter the level, falls into the general hierarchy of our judicial system. In the case of state vs. federal court I can understand a difference in ruling, as the case was escalated higher.
However, in the civil case following the criminal case I still fail to understand why that is allowed to happen. The person is tried in two courts -at the same level- and the govt winds up contradicting itself.
Now, in murder cases, the government brings charges on behalf of the dead person
As I see it, the government (being defined as the collective will of the people) is bringing the charges not merely for the dead person but for ALL of the people in the country. We have enabled the government to prosecute murders based on our common will. I'm fine with that concept.
The problem I see is that "ALL" the people already includes any family members, friends, well-wishers, or anyone else that wants to jump on the civil lawsuit bandwagon. Their interests have already been addressed by the criminal prosecution. They are just as much included in the part of "we the people" that set up the court system as anyone else.
Therefore it seems to me that those victims have already had their chance to try the defendant. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, there should be no follow-up civil suit allowed for the same crime. I think it does in fact violate the concept of double jeopardy.
I agree completely with the second paragraph, I'm just not seeing why these civil cases are allowed.
DirecTV also agreed to change its pre-lawsuit demand letters to explain in detail how innocent recipients can get DirecTV to drop their cases. The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases.
So basically, you still get a letter threatening a lawsuit. Instead of saying "pay up now and we'll drop the case" it says "come up with evidence supporting you and we'll drop the case."
extortion
1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
Big deal. Instead of them forcing you to directly pay them, they're forcing you to go out of your way, and spend your own time presenting them with evidence, which (in their very own highly impartial secret court) they may or may not decide is good enough reason for them to drop the case. Basically they want you to get on your knees and kiss their arse.
As mentioned in other threads, DTV simply agreed because of tech. advances. If their new scheme gets broken they'll be right back at it.
I see this whole press release as more mutual political agreement than anything else. EFF gets to claim a victory, DTV gets to look less hard-assed...but nothing really changed.
I know this is a stretch to hope for, but might there be some actual lawyers around to clarify...?
To me this seems a contradiction in our justice system. Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second. I understand that it was two different court systems, one criminal and one civil, and that there's a different standard, "proven beyond doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence". However both courts are still under the single system of the US Govt.
We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy". I guess what I don't understand is the legal or moral reasons why we allow these types of civil cases at all. To me, "not being tried twice" is a pretty simple concept. It sure is different from "we'll try you once, and if that doesn't work try you again in a second court that by the way has a lesser standard of guilt."
Especially when the punishments meted out are pretty much equivalent in terms of ruining someone's life. Owing someone millions of dollars that you'll never be able to pay off in your lifetime sounds just as bad (to me at least) as spending years in jail.
Anyway, just curious why that system is like it is.
The situation is no different with cable descramblers.
Actually it's completely different.
To get a cable signal provided to your house you have to sign a contract with a cable provider. Said contract explicitly forbids descrambling their signal. To do so is breach-of-contract.
Now, I'd like you to show me this implicit contract that DTV supporters seem to believe that every person in America signed with them. Sorry but just 'coz they're a monstrous company doesn't mean I choose to let them sign my own name for me and take away my right to do whatever I please in my own house.
I don't know how you could control this either. For software it would mean the end of distribution, period. Once it was sold in digital form it could be redistributed freely. OK, that puts Microsoft effectively out of the game. And Adobe.
Not hardly. You just have to think about things a little differently (and I admit there would certainly be some changes, just not as much as you might think)... Here are some examples:
Dell wants to sell PC's with Windows pre-installed. This is a benefit to their users, it helps their sales, and they can charge more. Now under my new scheme, this would still be illegal (they'd be making money using Microsoft's copyrighted software). So Dell still has to pay Microsoft a fee for each PC (just like it is now). That's a pretty good percentage of users, as most people want an OS on their computer when they buy it.
There's also a good percentage of businesses that do their own installs -- ok, now under the new system they sure could download and install that software for free. BUT -- what exactly are they using those PC's for, hmm? If they're using Microsoft products to make money, then it's time to ante up that licensing fee.
The above example works for Adobe as well. Used Photoshop to do some graphics for a for-profit magazine? Time to ante up.
See, it just requires a different way of thinking. Distribution should be free. For-profit use should require a fair fee paid back to the copyright holder.
I actually believe that there wouldn't be a very significant change in anything. As it is, it's already possible to get a "free" copy of any Microsoft or Adobe product off the 'net.
We should have laws that make sense, and not have laws that chase impossible goals.
That might work if it weren't for the fact that it costs lots more money to record, produce, and (most importantly) distribute than most people can afford. That's why artists get financed through companies. Their rules state that they give you money and in return they get most of the profits. That's just how it works.
Forgive me, I didn't mean to imply that licensing agreements would also be nixed. Change "only one" to read "original copyright holder as well as anyone they license their rights to".
Why is it that as soon as you put money in the equation then piracy isn't okay? I mean really, what's the difference between giving a million people a copy of something for free and giving a million people a copy of something for, say, a penny? What magical line did the person just cross that makes one act "not cool" to piracy advocates?
Because it's not "piracy". No physical property is being stolen, there is no owner being deprived of its use. No seagoing vessels have been boarded, and no villages raped and plundered.
No, what we're talking about is a purely economic concept and the laws relating to it. I am suggesting that we reinterpret those laws. Get off your high horse, this isn't about good and evil, it's just economics.
The whole problem is that we've allowed corporations and other commercial entities to redefine what "illegally copy" means. I mean really, who was it that decided to give them this kind of Godlike power, without any associated responsibility or accountability??
Anyway, I think there's a way to fix it that would be simple and fair for everyone. We need to change the legal definition of what a copyright means. Simply put, a copyright should grant the creator of a work the sole ability to collect revenue based on any use of that work. That's it, that's what you get, and nothing more. You write a book, record a song, make a movie, and you're the only one allowed to make money from it.
If someone is doing something with your work but not cashing in, guess what? Tough beans. You don't get to pull out any bullshit about "lost profits", because all that does is make for more lawyers arguing what that means, and God knows we've got enough of those. You've been granted the right to be the only person in the country who can legally make money from any use of your work, and that's an immensely powerful right. Sorry, but you don't get to have that, AND make that money by sitting on your ass suing people.
Now likewise, if you ARE using someone's copyrighted work to make money, we're going to come down real hard on you. Money always leaves a trail. And the Justice Department will have more than enough bulldogs freed up from hunting fileswappers to chase you down. Not to mention that income has to be -reported-. Try avoiding that, and see how quick the IRS gets after you too. Changing the currently unbalanced copyright laws to be fair to all sides means there will be more serious enforcement.
Ok, I don't really know how great a solution this is and it was a quick explanation, but this being Slashdot I'm sure someone can add something to it.
Your money argument simply does not hold up. Let's say every CD only does cost 10 dollars. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Now, minus an initial cost an Internet connection costs 40 bucks. For 40 bucks a month therefore I can have:
1) 4 CD's with tracks that have been arbitrarily chosen for me.
2) True availability of all music that's ever been digitized and uploaded to the net.
Isn't it obvious which one makes more sense?
You also keep claiming it doesn't fund the creation of music. Please explain to me how exactly we require either the existing music industry or a "viable alternative" in order to keep having music created.