I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's the government's place. I think it's the responsibility of parents to teach their kids good values and what is truly worthwhile in life, but that's another discussion, and it's more about methodology than anything else.
I definitely think the flip side is also true. The RIAA has no business attempting to legislate its business plan into law. The world has always changed, and technology has always mad some business plans obsolete. The law was not made to "fix" that.
So what's the solution? I don't think copyright violation is right. I do it at times, but am not comfortable with my own rationalizations. I do think there needs to be some protection of an individuals creation to allow them the reasonable chance of making money back from theit work. On the same note, the RIAA's draconian demands of being able to go vigilante on suspected networks is ridiculous.
So back to the original post I was replying to: People perceive that the recording studios are the only way to make it in the music industry. The studio's contract is controlling but the artist signs it anyway. The artist's soul is effectively sold. Where in this picture should the government intervene?
Note to Oliverthered: I do realize that you did not make the original assertions to which I am replying.
I agree, but at what point did the big drain company violate the law? Or did they become the big drain company by fighting to the top? If they are a legitimate monopoly (which is not illegal), then I don't think it's the government's responsibility to insure that I can become the drain cleaner that my potential allows. However, if they became the monopoly they are by violating and abusing the law, then they should go down. It's similar to Microsoft in some ways. If they had made it to the position they are in by acting in accordance with the law, then the government would have no business interfering with them.
On a side note, here's something I think that's also happening. For the past 20+ years the music labels have been promoting music and songs that seem to mock morality. The spirit of modern music is "live the way you want to and screw everyone else". Then when people are apathetic about copyright violation, the RIAA gets all moral on us, decrying it as stealing. You can't have it both ways. I think they are just reaping what they have sown.
Do musicians have to sign with a label? Don't they have the choice to not sign their music rights over to someone else? It's not a basic right that there will always be a way to do the thing you love and make a lot of money off of it, and I don't think that's something the government can or should enforce.
I do agree that price fixing should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
Actually it's even better. You still have your television, they just built one identical to yours, no wait, they built one that looks and sounds almost exactly like your TV, only smaller.
You assume I'm a Christian? I could be talking about aliens, the great God Zarkon, Chthullu, or anything for that matter, but no, apparently you've got something out for Christians.
An as far as the sig goes, it might as well be talking about your comment's subject. Or were you really talking about your god and his supposed goodness?
No, I don't think that copy protection on the home PC is necessary or required. The whole basis of our legal system is to pass laws, but at any time a person can violate those laws and face the penalties for doing so.
Lately we have been getting more and more into prohibiting freedom so that illegal activities are more difficult to commit, but this also makes legal activities much more difficult or nearly impossible without resorting to illegal measures. The recording studios should not be afforded greater rights than a citizen especially by making the general public's lifestyle to change to allow a certain business model of theirs to remain profitable.
What is effectively being said here is that a corporate copyright is so important to the American way of life that is more important than an individual's copyright, and more important than an individual's freedom to manage content owned by them, because they might be committing a crime.
This is a classic case of geek reasoning. Aything that prevents you from doing something cool receives a rating of [-5 illogical] until you've got the cool thing set up. Then it all has to be re-evaluated.
<rationalizing>cellphones are too expensive, therefore we must set up a wireless network </rationalizing> [later] ok, the network is set up, and now getting on the net is the new cool goal, <rationalizing> hmmm, maybe cellphone calls aren't really that expensive </rationalizing>
The sad thing is, I can look at soooo many times when I've done the same thing.
yes, but if all companies today had as many vehicles as they have computer systems, programs in development, and networks then mechanics would still be in high demand.
Every company of any real size (12-15 PC's/vehicles in our analogy) would have to employ at least one or two just to take care of day to day issues.
If you believe that an (talented?) individual has the exclusive right to their work, do you then believe that the individual cannot sell that right or use it in anyway that benefits them?
If you believe that the exclusive right to an individuals work is a tangible right and able to be transferred by contract and agreement then the fact that Britney Spears chose to sell her work and it's copyright protection to a company is irrelevant.
Why do you want it so bad? Why do you have a right to it because it exists? If she sings it in front of you, you heard it and you have a right to the memory of it. If she sells it to you, you can do anything with the data from that copy to enjoy and listen to it all you want. But posession of it must remain with you.
If I write something it belongs to me. If someone breaks into my house and steals what I wrote along with my chainsaw does that mean you can take what I wrote with no feelings of guilt, but the chainsaw you would be wrong to take? Why? Explain that to me. If I give something to a friend, I did not give it to you. If I broadcast something over airwaves then you have physical access rights to the data on those airwaves, but you can't ditribute them to everyone (i.e. if I give you a copy of my book you have the copy not the right to make and distribute copies).
Copyright is simply this: an implicit contract which must be opted out of by the author. If you buy something that is coyrighted you agree to that contract as a citizen of the United States or as a citizen of any country that recognizes copyright law.
This part has nothing to do with your comment:
Most of what is distributed today is done so with the understanding that it falls under the protection of copyright. You can't assert that without copyright everything (or even most) of what is on the market would still be on the market.
This will probably get flagged as offtopic, but here goes anyway:
If you do want some really excellent fight scenes in a novel, (and no, I don't consider "In a blinding flash of steel it was over" to be a good fight), then you should check out Joel Rosenberg's Guardian's of the Flame series.
The series list is as follows: The Sleeping Dragon
The Sword and the Chain
The Silver Crown
The Heir Apparent
The Warrior Lives
The Road to Ehvenor
The Road Home
Not Exactly the Three Musketeers
I've read through The Road to Ehvenor and felt that some of the strength of the novels had petered out around that point (Ehvenor was still good, just in a different way), but the first five books are phenomenal. The story is slick, the magic is interesting, the world and characters's grow over time and it definitely has a depth of humanity, but with all that, I think it was the fight's that did it for me. Anyway, if you have the money and the time, give them a chance, it's a wothwhile read.
"As for this software, I can't see it holding up in any court. You can't say "I shut my eyes everytime I drove past a speed limit sign" and expect a judge to let you off the hook for going 120"
That's a bit of a flawed analogy. The speed limit is law, EULA's are a belated attempt by software companies to turn a SALE into a contractual agreement.
There is nothing legal about a EULA unless you agree to it (and possibly not even then).
It should be (I am not suggesting that it is) difficult to sell someone something, that after the sale, places unforseen restrictions on the buyer and leaves them with a product that they can not use without accepting those restrictions.
So I need to go to several regular newsites to read the stories about a site that is supposed to make such requirements unnecessary......ok
Re:A PS2 with different games
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
You people do remember that when the PS2 released, it had a terribly small set of games, none of which showed anywhere near the graphics capabilities that we are seeing in current titles.
The main thing that we are dealing with here is second generation development versus first generation release titles. (Granted the hardware for the Xbox is basically a PC, but it may still be a change for console developers) I can give you an example from quite a while back that made the biggest impression on me. Near the end of the Super Nintendo's cycle (while the world was still waiting on the N64), and shortly after the release of the Playstation and it's skyrocket to fame, Rare studios released Donkey Kong Country for the N64. It was phenomenal compared to any SuperNes game, and fared better than many Playstation games. It made me question the superiority of the Playstation. Since then I have learned the tremendous gains that are made in each generation of game development. The capabilities of the system become more apparent, and the developers learn exactly how much they can squeeze out of the hardware.
This is exactly what is being seen in the Xbox vs. PS2 comparisons. In fact, as I look back at reviews of early games released on both the Dreamcast and PS2, several mags gave them nearly identical praise. Over a year later, it is clear that PS2 is capable of more than the Dreamcast, and given a year of new development, the Xbox should show the same distinction.
The real question is the same one that plagued the Dreamcast: will enough third party developers make games for it? The answer already seems to be yes.
I don't mind criticism of the Xbox, but criticism that would not have been (and was not applied) to the PS2 is biased and pointless. We just need to give the system time to show it's power. If it fails in that respect, then it will fail completely. Personally, I think the competition will be good for everyone.
"Until then, you have NO RIGHTS not allocated you by contract or law. "
That's the clencher right there isn't it? You seem to forget that law is not imposed by the government, but by the people. We are not at the mercy of our government (or if we are, then we have lost our freedom already), but it is at the mercy of the people. The government is not to be a separate entity from the people, but an extension of their will. I do not want my government to make me totally safe, they cannot achieve that end without taking away all my freedoms. In truth, throughout this entire debacle, I have been waiting for one politician, one leader, to tell me that they can not keep me safe at all times, and that I must bear some brunt of the responsibility for my safety.
Does the FBI NEED broader powers to prevent what happened at the WTC?
How on earth could we as the American people know the answer to that? All we know is that it did happen and that now, the FBI says that they NEED.
It would be reckless to take them at their word alone.
In the corporate world, it is common, in the aftermath of some botched project or some internal disaster for those responsible to say "We needed better equipment", or "We were limited by internal regulations."
The answer is to investigate their claims. Was it as they say, the internal regulations, was it the equipment? Had they throughout been requesting change and warning of disaster if it did not occur? OR as it so often is, was there a lowering of daily vigilance or a failure to operate according to established protocols?
At this point, I cannot as a citizen, know with any certainty. The FBI may have done all within their power, may have utlized every tool at their command and still failed. But we would be fools to believe them without inspecting their efforts.
I've read most of the posts below this point and find the arguments meaningless. Most have centered around the right to terminate a child's life before it comes to term based on circumstantial evidence. Shouldn't the choosing occur simultaneously with the decision to have sex? Shouldn't the decision be based on whether or not the developing child is a person? I have never understood the fundamental change that occurs in a child the moment it crosses the vaginal threshhold.
Hmmm... maybe ceasarean babies are still a fetus.
Charles Churchill II
Don't tell me that the difference between a baby and a fetus is viability. Show me a newborn who can live on it's own and I'll show you thirty year old men who can't.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's the government's place. I think it's the responsibility of parents to teach their kids good values and what is truly worthwhile in life, but that's another discussion, and it's more about methodology than anything else.
I definitely think the flip side is also true. The RIAA has no business attempting to legislate its business plan into law. The world has always changed, and technology has always mad some business plans obsolete. The law was not made to "fix" that.
So what's the solution?
I don't think copyright violation is right. I do it at times, but am not comfortable with my own rationalizations.
I do think there needs to be some protection of an individuals creation to allow them the reasonable chance of making money back from theit work.
On the same note, the RIAA's draconian demands of being able to go vigilante on suspected networks is ridiculous.
So back to the original post I was replying to:
People perceive that the recording studios are the only way to make it in the music industry.
The studio's contract is controlling but the artist signs it anyway.
The artist's soul is effectively sold.
Where in this picture should the government intervene?
Note to Oliverthered: I do realize that you did not make the original assertions to which I am replying.
I agree, but at what point did the big drain company violate the law?
Or did they become the big drain company by fighting to the top?
If they are a legitimate monopoly (which is not illegal), then I don't think it's the government's responsibility to insure that I can become the drain cleaner that my potential allows. However, if they became the monopoly they are by violating and abusing the law, then they should go down.
It's similar to Microsoft in some ways. If they had made it to the position they are in by acting in accordance with the law, then the government would have no business interfering with them.
On a side note, here's something I think that's also happening. For the past 20+ years the music labels have been promoting music and songs that seem to mock morality. The spirit of modern music is "live the way you want to and screw everyone else".
Then when people are apathetic about copyright violation, the RIAA gets all moral on us, decrying it as stealing.
You can't have it both ways. I think they are just reaping what they have sown.
Do musicians have to sign with a label?
Don't they have the choice to not sign their music rights over to someone else?
It's not a basic right that there will always be a way to do the thing you love and make a lot of money off of it, and I don't think that's something the government can or should enforce.
I do agree that price fixing should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I look forward to lapping the cap to a shinny mirror finish!
You just keep your "shinny" away from me and my processor (H)elix1, or should I call you Nickelmember?
For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
Actually it's even better. You still have your television, they just built one identical to yours,
no wait, they built one that looks and sounds almost exactly like your TV, only smaller.
In my hometown, most of the theaters will escort you out if your phone goes off during the middle of the movie.
To me that's the best policy, and it seems to get people's attention.
It is definitely the purview of the theater to distinguish itself as an establishment that does not tolerate selfish behavior.
You assume I'm a Christian?
I could be talking about aliens, the great God Zarkon, Chthullu, or anything for that matter, but no, apparently you've got something out for Christians.
An as far as the sig goes, it might as well be talking about your comment's subject. Or were you really talking about your god and his supposed goodness?
That is interesting...
;)
Now I'm excited about Palladium.
I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but some of us also think that birds were designed to fly
--
When will people get it? "Thank God" is just an expression!!
No, I don't think that copy protection on the home PC is necessary or required. The whole basis of our legal system is to pass laws, but at any time a person can violate those laws and face the penalties for doing so.
Lately we have been getting more and more into prohibiting freedom so that illegal activities are more difficult to commit, but this also makes legal activities much more difficult or nearly impossible without resorting to illegal measures. The recording studios should not be afforded greater rights than a citizen especially by making the general public's lifestyle to change to allow a certain business model of theirs to remain profitable.
What is effectively being said here is that a corporate copyright is so important to the American way of life that is more important than an individual's copyright, and more important than an individual's freedom to manage content owned by them, because they might be committing a crime.
I guess what it comes down to, is that they don't agree with you about Java.
Yeah, don't they all work for his opposition...
This is a classic case of geek reasoning. Aything that prevents you from doing something cool receives a rating of [-5 illogical] until you've got the cool thing set up. Then it all has to be re-evaluated.
<rationalizing>cellphones are too expensive, therefore we must set up a wireless network </rationalizing>
[later]
ok, the network is set up, and now getting on the net is the new cool goal, <rationalizing> hmmm, maybe cellphone calls aren't really that expensive </rationalizing>
The sad thing is, I can look at soooo many times when I've done the same thing.
I've noticed a shift in reliability from the 50's and 60's but it wasn't in a positive direction. ;)
yes, but if all companies today had as many vehicles as they have computer systems, programs in development, and networks then mechanics would still be in high demand.
Every company of any real size (12-15 PC's/vehicles in our analogy) would have to employ at least one or two just to take care of day to day issues.
If you believe that an (talented?) individual has the exclusive right to their work, do you then believe that the individual cannot sell that right or use it in anyway that benefits them?
If you believe that the exclusive right to an individuals work is a tangible right and able to be transferred by contract and agreement then the fact that Britney Spears chose to sell her work and it's copyright protection to a company is irrelevant.
Why do you want it so bad? Why do you have a right to it because it exists? If she sings it in front of you, you heard it and you have a right to the memory of it. If she sells it to you, you can do anything with the data from that copy to enjoy and listen to it all you want. But posession of it must remain with you.
If I write something it belongs to me. If someone breaks into my house and steals what I wrote along with my chainsaw does that mean you can take what I wrote with no feelings of guilt, but the chainsaw you would be wrong to take? Why? Explain that to me. If I give something to a friend, I did not give it to you. If I broadcast something over airwaves then you have physical access rights to the data on those airwaves, but you can't ditribute them to everyone (i.e. if I give you a copy of my book you have the copy not the right to make and distribute copies).
Copyright is simply this: an implicit contract which must be opted out of by the author. If you buy something that is coyrighted you agree to that contract as a citizen of the United States or as a citizen of any country that recognizes copyright law.
This part has nothing to do with your comment:
Most of what is distributed today is done so with the understanding that it falls under the protection of copyright. You can't assert that without copyright everything (or even most) of what is on the market would still be on the market.
This will probably get flagged as offtopic, but here goes anyway:
If you do want some really excellent fight scenes in a novel, (and no, I don't consider "In a blinding flash of steel it was over" to be a good fight), then you should check out Joel Rosenberg's Guardian's of the Flame series.
The series list is as follows:
The Sleeping Dragon
The Sword and the Chain
The Silver Crown
The Heir Apparent
The Warrior Lives
The Road to Ehvenor
The Road Home
Not Exactly the Three Musketeers
I've read through The Road to Ehvenor and felt that some of the strength of the novels had petered out around that point (Ehvenor was still good, just in a different way), but the first five books are phenomenal. The story is slick, the magic is interesting, the world and characters's grow over time and it definitely has a depth of humanity, but with all that, I think it was the fight's that did it for me.
Anyway, if you have the money and the time, give them a chance, it's a wothwhile read.
That's a bit of a flawed analogy. The speed limit is law, EULA's are a belated attempt by software companies to turn a SALE into a contractual agreement.
There is nothing legal about a EULA unless you agree to it (and possibly not even then).
It should be (I am not suggesting that it is) difficult to sell someone something, that after the sale, places unforseen restrictions on the buyer and leaves them with a product that they can not use without accepting those restrictions.possibly because whereas typically means "while on the contrary"
"Read a book, you're making us look like idiots" - Handy, the Human Ton's right hand
So I need to go to several regular newsites to read the stories about a site that is supposed to make such requirements unnecessary......ok
You people do remember that when the PS2 released, it had a terribly small set of games, none of which showed anywhere near the graphics capabilities that we are seeing in current titles.
The main thing that we are dealing with here is second generation development versus first generation release titles. (Granted the hardware for the Xbox is basically a PC, but it may still be a change for console developers) I can give you an example from quite a while back that made the biggest impression on me. Near the end of the Super Nintendo's cycle (while the world was still waiting on the N64), and shortly after the release of the Playstation and it's skyrocket to fame, Rare studios released Donkey Kong Country for the N64. It was phenomenal compared to any SuperNes game, and fared better than many Playstation games. It made me question the superiority of the Playstation. Since then I have learned the tremendous gains that are made in each generation of game development. The capabilities of the system become more apparent, and the developers learn exactly how much they can squeeze out of the hardware.
This is exactly what is being seen in the Xbox vs. PS2 comparisons. In fact, as I look back at reviews of early games released on both the Dreamcast and PS2, several mags gave them nearly identical praise. Over a year later, it is clear that PS2 is capable of more than the Dreamcast, and given a year of new development, the Xbox should show the same distinction.
The real question is the same one that plagued the Dreamcast: will enough third party developers make games for it? The answer already seems to be yes.
I don't mind criticism of the Xbox, but criticism that would not have been (and was not applied) to the PS2 is biased and pointless. We just need to give the system time to show it's power. If it fails in that respect, then it will fail completely. Personally, I think the competition will be good for everyone.
"Until then, you have NO RIGHTS not allocated you by contract or law. "
That's the clencher right there isn't it? You seem to forget that law is not imposed by the government, but by the people. We are not at the mercy of our government (or if we are, then we have lost our freedom already), but it is at the mercy of the people. The government is not to be a separate entity from the people, but an extension of their will. I do not want my government to make me totally safe, they cannot achieve that end without taking away all my freedoms.
In truth, throughout this entire debacle, I have been waiting for one politician, one leader, to tell me that they can not keep me safe at all times, and that I must bear some brunt of the responsibility for my safety.
Does the FBI NEED broader powers to prevent what happened at the WTC?
How on earth could we as the American people know the answer to that? All we know is that it did happen and that now, the FBI says that they NEED.
It would be reckless to take them at their word alone.
In the corporate world, it is common, in the aftermath of some botched project or some internal disaster for those responsible to say "We needed better equipment", or "We were limited by internal regulations."
The answer is to investigate their claims. Was it as they say, the internal regulations, was it the equipment? Had they throughout been requesting change and warning of disaster if it did not occur? OR as it so often is, was there a lowering of daily vigilance or a failure to operate according to established protocols?
At this point, I cannot as a citizen, know with any certainty. The FBI may have done all within their power, may have utlized every tool at their command and still failed. But we would be fools to believe them without inspecting their efforts.
I've read most of the posts below this point and find the arguments meaningless. Most have centered around the right to terminate a child's life before it comes to term based on circumstantial evidence. Shouldn't the choosing occur simultaneously with the decision to have sex? Shouldn't the decision be based on whether or not the developing child is a person? I have never understood the fundamental change that occurs in a child the moment it crosses the vaginal threshhold.
Hmmm... maybe ceasarean babies are still a fetus.
Charles Churchill II
Don't tell me that the difference between a baby and a fetus is viability. Show me a newborn who can live on it's own and I'll show you thirty year old men who can't.