Doesn't matter, remember. It's their car, it's their responsibility.
Not necessarily. I don't know how it is in England, but in the US most of the cars politicos drive around in are paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sure, a specific car may be assigned to a particlar politico, but it would most likely be the driver that's blamed (and who gets to pay for the ticket). Just another working Joe who gets the shaft.
It does seem ironic that the right wing factions promote freedoms and civil liberties that give people the right to posess guns (devices for killing), also promote freedoms of commerce that prohibit the posession of smart card programmers (devices for sticking numbers onto cards).
Firstly, I can't even believe I'm replying to you seeing as you're ovbiously ignorant.
What is the point of attacking the "right wing factions" as you call them? DirecTV, while it is indeed a business, does not represent any political faction, and while it's methods appear to be totalitarian and fascist, that doesn't mean it represents the thoughts and ideas of all right wing parties.
In addition, it is no more ironic than left-wingers who promote freedoms and civil liberties like free speech and non-discrimination, but who do not support the right of people to defend themselves by owning guns.
btw dtv has lost a few of the suits lately, seems some of the judges are starting to get pissed off about their antics.
Hopefully not. While I certainly do not support DTV in any way, their lawsuits should be tossed out because they are not legally sound. They should not be tossed out because of "antics."
as with "Ogg Vorbis" (that's the name, right?), the only place I've ever heard of FLAC is on Slashdot.
Well then you should try browsing the net a little!;o)
Seriously, though, every new format (audio or otherwise) has to build a base of dedicated users before it gets widely recognized. When PNG first started, it wasn't the most well-known either (though being developed by an international standards organization helped a little;o).
When people begin supporting newer (I would say better in this case, but I'll leave that up to you to decide) formats then you only have positives because then people can choose what they want. If you want to continue using formats you're comfortable with, that's fine.
basically, I'm saying "pfft" at your silly audio formats that nobody uses.:P
That's simply not true. Regardin Ogg Vorbis (which is a lossy format and so not comparable to FLAC anyway), if nobody used it then why does the newest version WinAmp support it natively? Not only that, but RealMedia has said they are going to support it as well. This is because they realize that people do use it, and that as the benefits of using an open standard (as opposed to mp3, which is proprietary) will reveal itself to more people in the future. FLAC is the same way -- Phish realized that 1) it is technically a better format than SHN (lossless and compresses smaller), and 2) more people are beginning to desire it.
There's really no good reason to say, "Well, not everybody's using it yet, so I'm not gonna either." What you should do instead is look at the merits of one format vs. another and then make a decision for yourself instead of relying on public opinion (which will screw you over every time).
I've seen a few posts that have indicated that this law would be a Good Thing(TM). But in my opinion, it's useless. The law basically says that law enforcement agencies should share information to stop crime. THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THEY DO!!!
Yes, violating copyrights is wrong, both legally and ethically, and violations should be reasonably enforced. But will this really do anything for the big copyright violators? Prolly not. It's just more fodder to prosecute the small fries. The people who make a killing selling mass pirated videos, software, etc. in China will continue to do so. All this will do is hurt some more college kids who have no money and aren't making any off their "violations".
Provided teachers have block/unblock per site capabilities, what is the problem.
Unfortunately, teachers probably won't have this capability. It will probably fall to administrators, which means (as always) the power will rest in the hands of a few disassociated persons. Also, I imagine the red-tape involved will increase.
In regards to libraries, I agree with other sentiments that have been expressed saying that there should be a separate kids section that has filtering software. There's no reason why I as an adult should be forced so ask for special permission.
People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true!
Please, please, please! give me some of what you're smokin'. Who the heck do you think came up with the insane idea to make CD's incompatible with computers and other CD players by putting on a lame "copy-protection scheme" that could be defeated with a black magic marker?
This isn't self use software. This is a pair of companies that take third party content, alter it, and then sell or rent it. This is not the case of someone like a parent deciding that they don't like a certain scene and cutting it out. From what I gather from the article, this is not software that is sold to the home market, this is commercial use software.
Read the article again. Here, I'll even help you out.
The companies in question are Trilogy Studios in Sandy and ClearPlay in Salt Lake City. They make software to edit DVD streams. They do not sell content, and they do not modify the DVD themselves.
But EFF argues that companies that create software to edit out "filth" in DVDs are different from CleanFlicks...
As the article also says, CleanFlicks was the company editing and selling software. EFF is not submitting the amicus brief on their behalf. The brief only covers the other two companies.
...because the product doesn't actually alter the DVD. As the DVD plays in a home computer, the program skips violent or sexual scenes.
Now, presumably you could use such software to edit a video stream and then burn the result and sell it. That would be illegal. But this is very similar to the case with morpheus and kazaa -- they are tools that can be used to infringe copyrights, but they have significant non-infringing uses, just like this DVD editing software.
Of course the MPAA doesn't want people looking at their movies with an editor's eye. To edit something means to think about it. If people start thinking, they might realize that the MPAA's movies are all crap.
so what about those who can't afford a computer/software? is this another plot for digital divide? people with computer are 'cleaner', those without are 'filthier'?
Have you tried installing third-party software on your standalone DVD player lately?
Nevertheless, hopefully, if this is allowed and if it get's some market share, there may be some standalone players with this kind of software built in. But right now it's just not practical for standalone players.
Also, your making this subject into a class struggle is pointless. Computers aren't necessarily more expensive than standalone players, if you have a little know-how and can find a good computer show.
People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned
No, you have it wrong. The EFF isn't standing for public censorship. Rather, they're saying individuals should be allowed to cut out things they don't want their children to see. I agree that if it was a broad-based public censorship, then it would be bad. But basically all their advocating here is a fair use right for individuals (or families) to do what they want with something they bought. That is totally something I can understand.
For example, my mom still hasn't seen all of Saving Private Ryan because she couldn't get through the first five minutes, which is just the beginninng of a very realistic portrayal of the storming of Normandy beach. If I were to cut out some of the most disgusting scenes for her, then she would probably watch it and enjoy it. I don't see why this should be wrong.
She also doesn't like swearing, and if a movie has a lot of F--- this and F--- that, she's very likely to be turned off by it even though she says she likes the plot. She should be allowed to do that if she wants.
It's all about user's choice. The censorship is self-censorship, and therefore totally permissible (and supportable) IMHO.
Read the article and the draft. It looks like this would only apply to businesses. This would guarantee Joe Sixpack the right to respond to the European equivalent of CNN.com and have that reply posted.
RTFA! It would apply to anybody.
This is asinine. There's no reason a person can't reply. If I print something in my blog, that's my opinion. I should not be forced to give somebody else's opinion as well. If I want to give others' opinions, then it should be my choice.
Also, others are free to respond already -- on their own websites or other media! If I slander or libel somebody, they can already sue me under existing laws and will have their say in court. Forcing people post replies will not result in anything more constructive than, "He called me a poo-poo head, and I'm here to say that I'm not."
In other news, Senator Hatch has just proposed an anti-speeding law. The new law, if enacted, would allow law enforcement to use lethal force when enforcing speeding laws.
Rather, according to his arguments in this instance, the analogy would be better made that law enforcement couldn't do it, but other drivers could. This would effectively legalize road rage.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. I don't know how it is in England, but in the US most of the cars politicos drive around in are paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sure, a specific car may be assigned to a particlar politico, but it would most likely be the driver that's blamed (and who gets to pay for the ticket). Just another working Joe who gets the shaft.
You mean you don't already have one!!!
And exactly how many of these do you think drive their own cars?
Firstly, I can't even believe I'm replying to you seeing as you're ovbiously ignorant.
What is the point of attacking the "right wing factions" as you call them? DirecTV, while it is indeed a business, does not represent any political faction, and while it's methods appear to be totalitarian and fascist, that doesn't mean it represents the thoughts and ideas of all right wing parties.
In addition, it is no more ironic than left-wingers who promote freedoms and civil liberties like free speech and non-discrimination, but who do not support the right of people to defend themselves by owning guns.
The road is trampled both ways.
Hopefully not. While I certainly do not support DTV in any way, their lawsuits should be tossed out because they are not legally sound. They should not be tossed out because of "antics."
Dammit, now why'd you go and say that? Now some stupid politician looking for whore-money is going to suggest this. Thanks alot pal.
Then give 'em your name and address. Better yet, post it here.
Oh, don't worry -- they're going to let all the druggies out to make room for us.
The fact that nothing has to be registered to be copyrighted anymore accounts simply enough for that.
Yes -- can't you just see the USS Sean Penn or the USS Tim Robbins.
Well then you should try browsing the net a little! ;o)
Seriously, though, every new format (audio or otherwise) has to build a base of dedicated users before it gets widely recognized. When PNG first started, it wasn't the most well-known either (though being developed by an international standards organization helped a little ;o).
When people begin supporting newer (I would say better in this case, but I'll leave that up to you to decide) formats then you only have positives because then people can choose what they want. If you want to continue using formats you're comfortable with, that's fine.
That's simply not true. Regardin Ogg Vorbis (which is a lossy format and so not comparable to FLAC anyway), if nobody used it then why does the newest version WinAmp support it natively? Not only that, but RealMedia has said they are going to support it as well. This is because they realize that people do use it, and that as the benefits of using an open standard (as opposed to mp3, which is proprietary) will reveal itself to more people in the future. FLAC is the same way -- Phish realized that 1) it is technically a better format than SHN (lossless and compresses smaller), and 2) more people are beginning to desire it.
There's really no good reason to say, "Well, not everybody's using it yet, so I'm not gonna either." What you should do instead is look at the merits of one format vs. another and then make a decision for yourself instead of relying on public opinion (which will screw you over every time).
I've seen a few posts that have indicated that this law would be a Good Thing(TM). But in my opinion, it's useless. The law basically says that law enforcement agencies should share information to stop crime. THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THEY DO!!!
Yes, violating copyrights is wrong, both legally and ethically, and violations should be reasonably enforced. But will this really do anything for the big copyright violators? Prolly not. It's just more fodder to prosecute the small fries. The people who make a killing selling mass pirated videos, software, etc. in China will continue to do so. All this will do is hurt some more college kids who have no money and aren't making any off their "violations".
Unfortunately, teachers probably won't have this capability. It will probably fall to administrators, which means (as always) the power will rest in the hands of a few disassociated persons. Also, I imagine the red-tape involved will increase.
In regards to libraries, I agree with other sentiments that have been expressed saying that there should be a separate kids section that has filtering software. There's no reason why I as an adult should be forced so ask for special permission.
...to a good old-fashioned Denial of service attack?
Please, please, please! give me some of what you're smokin'. Who the heck do you think came up with the insane idea to make CD's incompatible with computers and other CD players by putting on a lame "copy-protection scheme" that could be defeated with a black magic marker?
Read the article again. Here, I'll even help you out.
The companies in question are Trilogy Studios in Sandy and ClearPlay in Salt Lake City. They make software to edit DVD streams. They do not sell content, and they do not modify the DVD themselves.
As the article also says, CleanFlicks was the company editing and selling software. EFF is not submitting the amicus brief on their behalf. The brief only covers the other two companies.
Now, presumably you could use such software to edit a video stream and then burn the result and sell it. That would be illegal. But this is very similar to the case with morpheus and kazaa -- they are tools that can be used to infringe copyrights, but they have significant non-infringing uses, just like this DVD editing software.
RTFA. It's not about companies editing movies and selling them. It's about individual end-users editing and watching them.
Of course the MPAA doesn't want people looking at their movies with an editor's eye. To edit something means to think about it. If people start thinking, they might realize that the MPAA's movies are all crap.
Have you tried installing third-party software on your standalone DVD player lately?
Nevertheless, hopefully, if this is allowed and if it get's some market share, there may be some standalone players with this kind of software built in. But right now it's just not practical for standalone players.
Also, your making this subject into a class struggle is pointless. Computers aren't necessarily more expensive than standalone players, if you have a little know-how and can find a good computer show.
No, you have it wrong. The EFF isn't standing for public censorship. Rather, they're saying individuals should be allowed to cut out things they don't want their children to see. I agree that if it was a broad-based public censorship, then it would be bad. But basically all their advocating here is a fair use right for individuals (or families) to do what they want with something they bought. That is totally something I can understand.
For example, my mom still hasn't seen all of Saving Private Ryan because she couldn't get through the first five minutes, which is just the beginninng of a very realistic portrayal of the storming of Normandy beach. If I were to cut out some of the most disgusting scenes for her, then she would probably watch it and enjoy it. I don't see why this should be wrong.
She also doesn't like swearing, and if a movie has a lot of F--- this and F--- that, she's very likely to be turned off by it even though she says she likes the plot. She should be allowed to do that if she wants.
It's all about user's choice. The censorship is self-censorship, and therefore totally permissible (and supportable) IMHO.
I still don't understand why people don't put this kind of stuff in their story submissions. Here's the EFF's press release.]
What makes you think I'd want him to stop?
I almost wish now that I had been using SCO's products all along -- Just so I could make a declaration about how "I will never use them again!"
But alas, some malevolent twist of fate has conspired to keep me from such bliss....
RTFA! It would apply to anybody.
This is asinine. There's no reason a person can't reply. If I print something in my blog, that's my opinion. I should not be forced to give somebody else's opinion as well. If I want to give others' opinions, then it should be my choice.
Also, others are free to respond already -- on their own websites or other media! If I slander or libel somebody, they can already sue me under existing laws and will have their say in court. Forcing people post replies will not result in anything more constructive than, "He called me a poo-poo head, and I'm here to say that I'm not."
Rather, according to his arguments in this instance, the analogy would be better made that law enforcement couldn't do it, but other drivers could. This would effectively legalize road rage.